Preamble

The House met, after the Adjournment, on 6th April, 1944, for the Easter Recess.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL

Motion made, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[King's Consent signified.]

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LONDON AND NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Retail Businessess

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of retail business premises, in the following categories, which have been opened since the outbreak, of war;

branches of multiple stores, branches of co-operative societies and shops of all other types, respectively.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton:): Between 1st January, 1942, when the Location of Retail Businesses Order came into force, and 31st December, 1943, 4,848 licences were granted for the opening of new retail businesses. Of these, 165 were granted to branches of multiple stores; 59 to branches of cooperative societies; and 4,624 to other traders.

Furnishing Fabrics (Yarns)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, bearing in mind the necessity for making replacements of furnishing fabrics and the need for providing such materials for the new houses built under the Government's two year programme, and having regard to the acute shortage of curtains, window nets and upholstery fabrics, he will now release yarn to enable production of these materials to be resumed.

Mr. Dalton: Yarn is already being released for upholstery fabrics for utility furniture. For some time past, those entitled to utility furniture have also been able to apply for permits for curtain material. But the stocks are running down and I am, therefore, arranging for some new production, to be sold under the same conditions.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether, in view of the great importance of the subject, he is prepared to discuss this further with me?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, I shall be glad to have a talk with my hon. and gallant Friend about it.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the new fabrics be equitably distributed, particular regard being had to those areas where there is very great need for them?

Mr. Dalton: They are to be distributed strictly along with utility furniture; they will follow the distribution of utility furniture which, of course, goes to certan priority classes, as my hon. Friend knows.

Safety Boots

Mr. Glanville: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that many of the so-called safety boots now being sold are made of shoddy material and that this is causing grave dissatisfaction amongst workers in the heavy industries; and if he will remedy this.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. But if my hon. Friend will let me have some definite evidence, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Glanville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of these boots, which are normally supposed to last for 12 months, do not last for that number of weeks, and an impression is being created that there is a racket in these boots, as they are the shoddiest possible material?

Mr. Dalton: I made a Regulation last November, of which I have told the House, that every boot manufacturer has to stamp his mark upon the boots he makes and we can, therefore, trace any shoddy footwear to the maker, and further measures could be taken if necessary. lf, therefore, my hon. Friend will produce to me evidence, in the form if he likes, of some samples of these boots he speaks about, I will go into it.

Mr. Glanville: I shall be delighted to do so.

Sir Granville Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the leather and shoe industries will resent these accusations that are being put forward?

Hospital Nurses' Uniforms

Mr. Burke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an allocation of clothing coupons to hospital nurses for the renewal of uniforms.

Mr. Dalton: Hospital nurses are entitled to an initial outfit of uniform worth 94 coupons, and to annual replacements thereafter worth 28 coupons. In return, they are required to give up six coupons a year out of their basic ration. This, as my hon. Friend will recognise, is equivalent to a substantial allocation of clothing coupons.

Mr. Burke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of the need for absolute cleanliness, nurses have to keep considerable stocks in reserve, and, in addition to uniform, have to wear black stockings and shoes, which are, normally, not regarded as suitable for outside wear; and, in view of the arduous nature and the value of their work, will he look into the question again?

Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to do all I can to help the nurses. With regard to stockings, if my hon. Friend will put down a question to me in a fortnight's time, I may be able to add something. I am looking into this particular matter carefully, but I do not think that, even now, nurses are ungenerously treated.

Mr. Leach: Will my right hon. Friend consider the allocation of further coupons to Cabinet Ministers, some of whom are looking rather shabby nowadays?

Mr. Dalton: I always try to set a good example.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAUTICAL CHARTS

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the master charts, used for compiling nautical charts, to be insured against war damage under the provision of Part II of the War Damage Act, in view of the fact that these master charts form part of the essential equipment of those engaged in the business of compiling and publishing charts.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir; I am prepared to regard as insurable under Part II of the War Damage Act, 1943, master charts used for compiling and publishing nautical charts.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are we to understand from that answer that these master charts may be valued at a figure representing their value to their owners and not merely their value as ordinary charts?

Mr. Dalton: That goes rather wider than the Question on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will put that particular question down, and I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICIAL (TRANSFER ALLOWANCE)

Major Procter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department was consulted before it was decided to grant an outfit allowance of £500 to the present Director of the Overseas Division of the Department of Overseas Trade on his transfer to this country from New York last year; and what number of additional clothing coupons his Department agreed to allow to enable this money to be expended.

Mr. Dalton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," and to the second part "None."

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the point raised in the Question about a £500 allowance is correct, although the right hon. Gentleman was not consulted about it?

Mr. Dalton: My hon. Friend can understand the very simple answer I have given to the Question. If I am desired to elaborate it, I would say that I have inquired into the matter. The officer concerned is a member of the Foreign Service. The arrangements to which reference is made in the Question were arrangements between the Foreign Office and the Treasury, and I am advised that the term "outfit allowance" is quite misleading, and that it might really more properly be called a "transfer allowance," which is normally paid under regulations not within the control of my Department. But, in my view, it is perfectly proper and saris-factory to compensate consular officials and others who frequently have to move, with their families, from one part of the world back to this country, or to another part of the world.

Major Procter: I asked whether this was an outfit allowance of £500. I understood that it was an outfit allowance, and, if it was an outfit allowance, how could he spend that sum of money without coupons?

Mr. Dalton: He could, if he did not spend it on clothing.

Mr. Shinwell: Is this Department, in-chiding the Minister, worth £500 altogether?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE AND BELGIUM (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare if he has further information respecting the incidence of food shortages in Greece and Belgium; to what extent vitamins and food are still being supplied; and whether, in particular, he has received any reports on the condition of children in Athens.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As regards the first part of the Question, my information does not show any material change since the answer which I gave on 18th January to my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey). I assume that the second part of the Question refers to supplies permitted to pass through the blockade. The monthly allocations of foodstuffs for Greece have recently been increased from 20,200 tons to 31,200 tons. Shipments of vitamins are proceeding according to the programme submitted by the Neutral Commission. As regards Belgium, my hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the recent announcement that we have decided to allow Vitamin D to pass through the blockade. Arrangements are being made accordingly for the despatch of this vitamin to Belgium and other occupied countries. As regards the last part of the Question, my information is that about one-third of the child population under the age of fourteen in Athens and Piraeus are considered to be in need of special assistance, and are receiving this in canteens supplied by the Relief Organisation.

Mr. Sorensen: While expressing my appreciation of the statement, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this denotes an expansion of policy on his part, or whether, on the other hand, it is due to his judgment that conditions are increasingly getting worse?

Mr. Foot: I think that, largely as a result of guerilla fighting in Greece, there was a deterioration of conditions there. That was one of the reasons which led us to sanction the increase to which I refer.

Mr. Sorensen: Will this increase continue, or is it merely a spasmodic effort?

Mr. Foot: No, Sir. It is our present intention that distribution shall continue at the higher figure I have mentioned.

Mr. Stokes: Can the hon. Gentleman say how the proportion of the supplies now going to Belgium compares with that for which the Government of Belgium asked?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Has the Parliamentary Secretary noted that the House of Representatives in Washington a day or two ago decided unanimously in favour of a very much more generous treatment of these starving people in Europe; and will His Majesty's Government take note of that fact?

Mr. Leach: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take very great care, as he has already done, not to encourage the enemy about this matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKISH CHROME ORE (EXPORTS)

Sir William Davison: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the present position with regard to exports of chrome from Turkey to Germany and Great Britain, respectively; and under what circumstances has Turkey recently increased her exports of this vital war material to Germany while substantially reducing her exports to the Allies.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare the output of chrome-ore in Turkey for the year 1943; and the quantities of chrome-ore exported to Germany, to Germany's satellites and to the neutral countries of Europe, respectively.

Mr. Foot: I have no precise figures of Turkish production of chrome-ore in 1943. But the annual production in recent years has been in the neighbourhood of 100,000 tons. Exports during 1943 to the United Nations were 56,000 tons and to Germany approximately 47,000 tons. During the first two months of 1944 exports were 14,800 tons to Germany and 1,870 tons to the United Nations, the falling off in exports to the United Nations being mainly due to difficulties of transport. According to my information there have

been no exports during the past fifteen months to satellite or neutral countries. Since November last year, there has been a substantial increase in the monthly rate of consignments to Germany in return for increased German deliveries of arms. His Majesty's Ambassador at Angora, with the full support of his United States colleague, has drawn the most earnest attention of the Turkish Government to this increased assistance to our enemies, and His Majesty's Government feel sure that as a result of these representations the Turkish Government will realise the need either to prohibit these exports entirely, or to limit them to the barest minimum.

Sir W. Davison: Will this matter be pressed urgently? Does it not seem an extraordinary thing that an Ally should export to the enemy goods for the destruction of the soldiers of its own Ally?

Mr. Foot: I entirely agree with the comment of my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. Strauss: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, approximately, what percentage of Germany's chrome supplies do, in fact, come from Turkey?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Higher Command Appointments

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give an assurance that adequate scope and opportunity is afforded to all serving officers with specialised knowledge and that unorthodoxy and initiative do not preclude the employment of officers from appointment to higher command.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): I gladly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there was not some considerable delay in recognising the brilliant technique of the late General Wingate? Is it not vitally necessary to give the fullest possible scope and opportunity to young serving officers? How many generals under 40 are there to-day?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member had better put down a Question.

E.N.S.A. Entertainments

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War how many complaints he has received as to the lewd nature of


many of the turns provided in the E.N.S.A. shows for the troops.

Sir J. Grigg: In the last six months, during which period some thousands of shows have been given by E.N.S.A., 21 such complaints have been received.

Lorry Accident, Ipswich

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War if he can give any information in connection with the accident when a three-ton Army lorry carrying troops overturned on a hill at Ipswich; and how many Service men were injured.

Sir J. Grigg: Three people were killed in this accident, of whom two were civilians, and fifteen were injured, of whom one was a civilian. The inquest has been adjourned until 27th April and I cannot therefore add to the accounts of the accident which have appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. Thorne: May I take it for granted that the soldiers concerned are receiving free medical attention?

Kit Bags, Cairo (Thefts)

Mr. Granville: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the complaints of officers and other ranks that personal items of kit are missing from kit bags despatched from the base stores in Cairo to this country; and if he will investigate the cause.

Sir J. Grigg: Yes, Sir, I am aware that there have been some complaints and I hope that the arrangements now being made in Egypt to improve the packing, stowing and guarding of articles despatched to this country will have a good effect.

Mr. Granville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men who took part in the battle of E1 Alamein, and who left their kit at Cairo, now find that a good deal of it is missing? Is it right that they should have to make this good out of their pay? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention of his Department to make some allowance?

Sir J. Grigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down that Question. As far as my recollection goes—I am speaking from memory—there are regulations covering such cases.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

R.E.M.E. Officers (Corps Pay)

Colonel Greenwell: asked the Secretary of State for War why special pay, such as engineering pay, signal pay or corps pay is paid to all officers up to the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the R.E., R.C.S. and the R.A.S.C., but is not payable to officers of the corps of R.E.M.E.; and, in view of the fact that officers of that corps require to have technical qualifications of the highest order, whether he will consider putting them on the same footing as officers of the R.E.

Sir J. Grigg: Fully qualified R.E.M.E. officers draw consolidated rates of pay which include an element of corps pay. These rates are higher than R.E. rates, including the higher rate of corps pay, for lieutenants and captains, the same as R.E. rates for majors and lower than R.E. rates for lieutenant-colonels.

Pay (Scottish Bank Notes)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that English soldiers stationed in Scotland are paid in Scottish banknotes and that on returning to England they lose 1s. on exchanging each £1 note; and what steps has he taken to rectify this.

Sir J. Grigg: Since June of last year the banks in this country have accepted Scottish bank notes from the public generally at par. There is, therefore, no justification for the deduction made in the case the hon. Member has in mind. Instructions have, moreover, been in force for some time that whenever a soldier is going on leave outside Scotland payment for the leave period is to be made in Bank of England notes.

Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that, in fact, has not been observed?

Sir J. Grigg: I dare say it is always possible to find the exception which proves the rule, but the general practice is as I have described.

Family Allowances

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the hardships caused by the regulation that the wife of a soldier who is an absentee or a deserter, or is sentenced to detention, automatically loses her family allowance and her war service grant; and what steps he proposes to take to remove these hardships.

Sir J. Grigg: Family allowance and the qualifying allotment from the man's pay remain in issue throughout the period he is undergoing detention unless he is discharged or transferred to the Reserve. Any voluntary allotment remains in issue in addition for the first 28 days and then ceases. The allowance ceases to be paid when a soldier has been absent without leave for more than seven days and in this connexion I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford on 24th June last.

Colonial Troops (Corporal Punishment)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War if the offences for which corporal punishment may be administered to West African troops are similar in other colonial regiments; and if he has, or will secure, any record of such punishments respecting their nature and frequency.

Sir J. Grigg: The only Colonial Forces which have provision for corporal punishment are those in West and East Africa. The nature of the offences for which East African troops are liable to corporal punishment is similar to that in the West African Forces.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the right hon. Gentleman say why there is this discrimination between West and East African troops on the one hand, and other Colonial troops? Could he also say when this barbarous and sadistic punishment arose?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member must be aware that the War Office has merely taken over these Forces since the outbreak of war, and took over with them the disciplinary codes, which are matters of Colonial legislation. If the hon. Member wants any information on both the matters he has now raised, he had better address a question to the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Sorensen: Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that he, as Secretary of State for War, has a great deal to do with this matter? Can he not himself consult the Colonial Secretary on what I have described as sadistic punishment?

Sir J. Grigg: I have naturally consulted the Colonial Secretary. What I said was that when the War Office take

over Forces in time of war, it takes over their disciplinary codes with them, and their disciplinary codes are matters for Colonial legislation.

Mr. Sorensen: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman alter the codes himself?

Home Guard (Poster)

Colonel Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that His Majesty's Stationery Office poster No. 51–4512 is resented by many members of the Home Guard; and will he endeavour to prevent any further copies from being issued.

Sir J. Grigg: The poster was issued originally in response to a request from a Home Guard source, but, in view of the difference of opinion about it, instructions were sent out on 6th April that no further copies of it should be issued.

Colonel Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied, generally speaking, that the attendance of the Home Guard at parades is satisfactory?

Sir J. Grigg: Generally speaking, yes. There are of course exceptions.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many men of good standing in the Home Guard approved of the poster?

Italian Operations (Easter Sunday Service)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State far War whether he is aware that the German and Allied, including British, soldiers joined in the same religious service on the Garigliano front on Easter Sunday; that Protestant and Catholic services were broadcast to German troops who, within sight of the field altar, held their fire; whether this was done with the consent beforehand of the officer commanding; and whether religious services on these lines at any time violate King's Regulations.

Sir J. Grigg: I have no information about this.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a report sent by Reuters correspondent dated "With the Fifth Army on April 9th," and is he aware that the report of this service appeared in the most reputable newspapers in this country?

Sir J. Grigg: The Fifth Army, as my hon. Friend may remember, is under American Command.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that British soldiers were involved in this service, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the report is true or not?

Sir J. Grigg: I will certainly see if I can get any information, but I am bound to say that there are many other more urgent messages passing to that theatre of war.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that no steps will be taken to interfere with this method of holding united services?

Sir J. Grigg: The hon. Member can understand nothing of the sort.

North-West Frontier Service (1939–43 Star)

Mr. Hutchinson: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he will arrange for the Indian General Service Medal to be awarded to troops who have served in the North-West Frontier Province during the present war.

Sir J. Grigg: The award of the Indian General Service Medal was suspended on 1st January, 1940, and it has been decided to award the 1939–43 Star to those who have taken part in the campaigns on the North-West Frontier since that date.

Married Quarters (Rental Value)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War, what is the value from a rental point of view of married quarters occupied in barracks by soldiers' families; and will he give specimens of value of differing accommodation in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Grigg: The rent of quarters is assessed, when necessary, by the Command Land Agent on the basis of the commercial figure obtaining for such accommodation in the locality at the time. I regret that no such figures are available in the War Office but I will certainly consider the suggestion in the second part of the hon. Member's Question when the figures reach me.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it true that there is a reduction of family allowance for soldiers or their wives and families who occupy married quarters?

Sir. J. Grigg: I am not sure of the details, but there is a set-off consequent on the occupation of married quarters. But it is by no means a question of losing anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.A.F.I. WOMEN EMPLOYEES (STOCKINGS)

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for War, whether women employees of N.A.A.F.I. now receive issues of stockings free of charge and of coupons.

Sir J. Grigg: In this country women employees of N.A.A.F.I. are civilians and as such they surrender coupons for their stockings and pay for them. They pay a price for them which is approximately cost price. When they go overseas they are enlisted as A.T.S. auxiliaries and receive the usual issues made to them for which, of course, they do not pay or surrender coupons.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN PRISONERS OF WAR ("DIE ZEITUNG")

Mr. John Dugdalc: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make issues of "Die Zeitung" available in German prisoner-of-war camps in this country.

Sir J. Grigg: Arrangements are being made to allow German prisoners of war to buy this paper if they wish to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Inter-Departmental Liaison Staff

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet appointed a Scottish liaison officer to represent Scottish interests in the Board of Trade, Ministry of Pensions, Ministry of War Transport, Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Works and Ministry of Food.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. Johnston): Each of the four Scottish Departments for which I am responsible has a liaison staff in London which maintains the necessary contacts with other Government Departments including the United Kingdom Departments to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. In addition senior officers representing the Ministries of Production, Supply,


Aircraft Production, Labour and National Service, and Works, and the Admiralty and the Board of Trade attend regularly the meetings of the Scottish Council on Industry, while representatives of other Departments attend when necessary. There is, of course, also the closest contact between the Scottish Office in Edinburgh and the representatives of the various United Kingdom Departments.

Major Lloyd: While appreciating what my right hon. Friend has said, does he not feel that there is greater scope for more direct representation of Scottish interests through him than through any Government Departments in Whitehall?

Mr. Johnston: I would be glad to discuss this matter with my hon. and gallant Friend, but I think it is more important that senior officers representing the various Departments should be in touch with us in Edinburgh.

Mr. McGovern: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that all Scottish interests get the consideration they deserve?

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, not in every case.

Police Officers, Glasgow (Domiciliary Visits)

Mr. Buchanan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the police in uniform twice visited the home of W. Christie, 6, Birch Street, Glasgow, late one night and demanded from him the sum of over £2 for an alleged debt of his son who had joined the Merchant Navy; that within two hours of his son returning home after his ship had been torpedoed a uniformed constable, for the third time, called and demanded this sum and threatened him with certain penalties; why no account was rendered to Mr. Christie of the sum due; and if he will take steps to have the police stopped from becoming debt collectors and render any account due in writing.

Mr. Johnston: The police officers in question had been seconded for duty with the Warden's Service and were acting as members of that Service on the occasion referred to. I am assured that no threat of penalties was made; that none of the visits was later than 6.30 p.m.: and that the visit to Mr. Christie's son. of

whose circumstances the Civil Defence authorities were completely unaware, was made because his father on the occasion of the previous visits refused to discuss the matter. When the circumstances of the son became known the Chief Constable, as chief Civil Defence warden, decided to take no further action. The chief Civil Defence warden has arranged that in similar cases in future the matter will in the first place be taken up in writing and that any necessary visits by Civil Defence officers are not made in police uniform.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the Minister say why police officers, who now ought to be doing much more important work than collecting £2, got to know that this boy was home after being torpedoed two hours after his arrival?

Mr. Johnston: I cannot answer that without notice.

Mr. Buchanan: But I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman telling him the facts and giving him notice. If these people were supposed to be air-raid wardens can he say why they were able to trace this boy two hours after his return, and were able to demand this money?

Mr. Johnston: I have no recollection of that precise point having been put to me, but previous visits had taken place to the father's home and it was because the father had declined to discuss the matter that the police officers visited the boy.

Mr. Buchanan: Is not the Minister aware that the father was acting completely in accordance with his rights? How was it that these people were able to trace the boy in this way if they were not acting as police officers? Since when have police had the right to stand at a person's door any time they like?

Mr. Johnston: These men were not acting at that time as police officers [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. I have said that these men were acting as Civil Defence wardens and were wearing uniform and that instructions have been given that in no future case are they ever to go in uniform in this way.

Mr. Buchanan: As this raises a question of principle I will bring the matter up again on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Pensions

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Pensions how many war pensioners and recipients of other allowances under the Ministry are there in Scotland; and whether there is a Ministry of Pensions Administrative Office situated in Scotland.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): I regret that the detailed information desired by the hon. and gallant Member could not be obtained without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have offices at Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY

Shortage

Mr. Wootton-Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, if he will give the statistical basis for the claim in the advertisements issued by his Department that the greatest emergency which industry has had to face since Dunkirk is now before it as a result of the critical coal shortage.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): My hon. Friend has not quite correctly quoted the advertisements issued by my Department. What these advertisements stated was that the coal shortage is now critical and that this crisis was the greatest emergency that industry has had to face since Dunkirk. The statistical evidence for this statement is based on full figures of the consumption and stock position of every industrial establishment in the country which I keep constantly under review. I regret, however, that it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Has the Minister read the advertisement which says that the cause of the coal shortage is simply due to the fact that the war is now reaching its climax? Is he aware that it threatens efficient and inefficient people with the same penalties—use less coal or go without?

Miners, Armed Forces (Release)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he is aware that there

are a number of experienced colliers in the Services in this country who are anxious to return to underground work in the mines but, owing to not being able to get a promise of work from the manager of the mine, cannot get their release; and will he give consideration to this matter and see if employment can be found for suitable men.

Major Lloyd George: I am aware that it is not possible to find employment for all the men claiming previous underground experience whom the Service Departments are willing to release. The collieries are not able to engage unlimited numbers of men not qualified to work at the face and it is particularly difficult to place men of this kind who left the industry many years ago or whose previous experience was short. I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made by my Regional Controllers to find employment for suitable men. If, as is suggested, men with face experience whom the Service Departments are willing to release have been refused employment at the face, I should be glad to have details.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister aware that the present situation is very unsatisfactory? Men write to us saying that they cannot get consent from the colliery manager. Cannot he give power to the Regional Controllers to say whether a man should be employed or not? As to work not being available, this is the first time I have heard this lately in connection with the mines.

Major Lloyd George: I can assure my hon. Friend that my Regional Controllers do not accept the simple statement that there is no room in the mine or anything of that sort, without a careful investigation. If my hon. Friend can bring to me any cases where that has happened I will be glad to look into them.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of delay and frustration in the mining industry because of the lack of organisation of the Ministry's labour department? Will he take steps to see that this work is speeded up and get these men released?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot possibly accept that statement. Indeed, in regard to one particular Service, during the last fortnight over 1,000 men were submitted


and they have to be checked. We cannot allow people indiscriminately to leave the Forces. They have to be checked as to whether they were colliers before or not, and all that takes time.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that an application for release from the Armed Forces has to be made to the colliery manager who will only apply for those men he wants? For that reason this machinery is breaking down and there are scores of qualified men in the Army who could be released for the mines.

Major Lloyd George: These things have to be checked. It has come to my knowledge in the past that people have put themselves down as having been employed in certain collieries when, in fact, they were not so employed at all.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment, because it wants clearing up to the satisfaction of mine workers.

Service Volunteers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister how many men serving in the R.N., the Army and the R.A.F., respectively, have volunteered in recent months for work in the coalmines; how many such applications have been accepted; and how many of the men concerned have now been actually transferred to the industry.

Major Lloyd George: I have been asked to reply. As the reply is rather long and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The information is as follows:
I regret that statistics are not available showing the total number of volunteers, including those who are found not to be within the categories and age limits eligible for release. The following is the available information:—

A.—Men with previous underground experience

Royal Navy and Royal Marines

Up to 15th April the Admiralty had sent to my Ministry particulars of 1,958 men who appear to satisfy the conditions governing eligibility for release and they expect to be able to offer approximately 500 more. Before my Ministry ask for the man's release steps are taken in each case to check his claim to have had previous experience and arrangements have to be made to place him either with his previous employer or elsewhere. The following was the position at 15th April:



Applications for release sent to Admiralty by my Ministry
327


Released
100


Release instructions issued by Admiralty but men not known to have left units
140


Release instructions to be issued within the next few days
87

The remaining 1,631 men are under consideration in my Ministry and applications for release will be made as soon as previous experience has been confirmed and offers of underground employment obtained.

Army

Up to 15 April, 1944, 6,867 applications for release had been sent to the War Office by my Ministry with the following result:


On release at 15th April
3,701


Released and subsequently recalled
142


Found to be ineligible for release by the War Office
2,614


Under consideration by the War Office at 15th April
410

Royal Air Force

Up to 15th April the Air Ministry had sent to my Ministry particulars of 614 men who appear to satisfy the conditions governing eligibility for release. The following was the position at 15th April:


Applications for release sent to Air Ministry by my Ministry
291


Released
51


Release instruction issued by Air Ministry but men not known to have let units
240

The remaining 323 men are under consideration in my Ministry and applications for release will be made as soon as previous experience has been confirmed and offers of underground employment obtained.

B.—Men with no previous underground experience

I am advised that the numbers are as follows:


Number of releases agreed by the Services up to 15th April


Royal Navy and Royal Marines
954


Army
2,045


Royal Air Force
71

Number of whom now working in coal mines or training at Training Centres


Royal Navy and Royal Marines
195


Army
1,941


Royal Air Force
23

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.A. TROOPS, GREAT BRITAIN (NEWS SHEET)

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Minister of Information if, in view of the damage done to Anglo-American relations by propaganda to the effect that the British Government has issued a leaflet to


American troops calculated to influence their voting in the forthcoming Presidential Election, he will take steps to rebut this propaganda.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): My hon. and gallant Friend's Question doubtless refers to a frenzied attack by the Hearst Press on a news sheet called "Welcome" which is issued by the Ministry of Information to American soldiers on their arrival in Great Britain. "Welcome" consists of four pages. The first two are prepared by the Ministry of Information and consist of a message from the Prime Minister and some geographical points about the British Isles. The other two pages contain the news of the day compiled by editors of papers published near the ports. The editors give their services voluntarily and are completely free from interference by the Ministry of Information in their selection of news. A news item in "Welcome" about the forthcoming American election was described by the Hearst Press as "falsification and impudent interference in American affairs" and as "propaganda intended and designed to promote the reelection of Franklin D. Roosevelt as President of the United States." And in a rictus of rage the Hearst Press declared that "Welcome's" news item was a "meddlesome interference on the part of the British Government in American affairs." In order, I suppose, to strengthen the invective the last two words were printed in capital letters. Who was responsible for this wicked news item? Every word in it was cabled from New York by an agency controlled by the United Press. No British subject directs the policy of that great news agency or any of its affiliates. I imagine they will be surprised by the Hearst statement that their news can be falsified by the British Government or that they are promoting the re-election of Mr. Roosevelt.

Sir Irving Albery: Was the idea of issuing this publication to American troops on their arrival in this country suggested to American Army headquarters before it took place?

Mr. Bracken: I do not know whether it was suggested to American Army headquarters or not, but we are a free country and we issue any information or pamphlets we like.

Sir I. Albery: Is it not desirable that any publications that are issued to American troops in this country should first of all be approved by American headquarters?

Mr. Bracken: I should say myself that it is a very strange doctrine to ask American headquarters to approve any papers issued to troops. All these papers are prepared by people who thoroughly understand the United States and I do not believe that American generals want to set themselves up as censors of publications.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (EMPLOYMENT)

Mr. Denman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can indicate the form of inquiry he proposes as to what revision of the law relating to the employment of children and young persons is necessitated by the prospective passage of the Education Bill.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): As I stated on 4th April, the Home Secretary proposes to review the whole question of the law relating to the employment of children as expeditiously as possible, and one of the first steps which will be taken for this purpose will be to collect from local education authorities full and up-to-date information.

Mr. Denman: Do we understand that there will be no formal inquiry but simply a departmental investigation?

Mr. Peake: Until the information has been collected from the local authorities it would be premature to make any further statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD SAFETY (CHILDREN)

Admiral Sir William James: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether, in view of the anticipated increase of motor traffic after the war and the fact that owing to evacuation and diminished traffic during the war, the children have lost their awareness of danger from fast-moving vehicles, he will consider imposing a speed limit of 20 m.p.h. at the termination of the war in heavily built-up areas and villages until such time as the children have become accustomed to traffic.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel Baker): I will gladly consider the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend with the many other measures designed to reduce road accidents which are now under examination by the Road Safety Committee set up by my Noble Friend.

Sir W. James: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the thousands of trade vans and private cars which may appear suddenly, with brakes and drivers in a much reduced state of efficiency?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am bearing all those points in mind. We are preparing an interim programme of measures to be adopted immediately the war ends.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that, while it is essential that we should prevent road accidents, it is also desirable that we should reduce the number of Regulations?

Sir W. Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman consider getting into touch with the President of the Board of Education with a view to having a three minutes' talk every day in the schools advising children of the danger of crossing the road?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Representatives of the Board of Education come to our Road Safety Committee and are helping very much with education in schools all over the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANKS

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether at any early date he will arrange for an inspection of a German Mk. VI Tiger tank and an A.22 at a convenient place in the country, in view of the interest aroused amongst Members in the comparative merits of these machines.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Sir, after this year's campaign has reached a suitable phase it might be possible to parade not only the two tanks mentioned, but all the tanks to be used in the forthcoming battles and specimens of those we shall capture from the enemy.

Mr. Stokes: That does not answer my Question. Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid that, if he showed these two tanks—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must remember the rule about imputations.

Mr. Stokes: I did not mean any imputation. Is the reason for not acceding to my request that, if the right hon. Gentleman did so, Members would realise the untruthfulness of the statements that have been made in the House and the country as to the relative merits of the two tanks?

The Prime Minister: Since the word "untruthfulness" has been used, no one has been a greater contributor than the hon. Member.

Mr. Stokes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the soldiers agree with me and not with him?

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the result of the deliberations between Members of the War Cabinet and private Members of this House regarding an improvement in pay and allowances of the Armed Forces.

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make on service pay and allowances.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister if the Government has decided on its proposals for raising pay and allowances to soldiers and their dependants arising out of the Conference with Members of Parliament; and when a statement will be made on the subject.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the Government's decision on the question of increased pay to members of the Forces and increased allowances to dependants of such members.

The Prime Minister: A statement on this subject will be made to the House next week.

Mr. Buchanan: Could the right hon. Gentleman possibly say on which day?

The Prime Minister: No. I cannot.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVIL SERVANTS (GERMANS)

Mr. Petherick: asked the Prime Minister how many persons of German birth since naturalised and still unnaturalised,


respectively, are employed by His Majesty's Government in the Armed Forces and in the Civil Service.

The Prime Minister: The return for which my hon. Friend asks would involve a considerable amount of labour and even then would have to be subject to numerous qualifications.

Oral Answers to Questions — EQUAL PAY

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the question of equality of payment for equal work between men and women in the public services.

The Prime Minister: At this stage, I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 4th April in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Eye.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: If I put a Question down next week could I receive an answer?

The Prime Minister: I must not mortgage the future unduly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION (ANGLO-U.S.A. CONVERSATIONS)

Sir Oliver Simmonds: asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement with regard to the recent Anglo-American discussions in London concerning post-war civil air transport.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement on the agreement reached between the Lord Privy Seal and Mr. Berle, the representative of the U.S. Government, on the subjection of civil aviation; and whether the concessions announced by the Lord Privy Seal will be reported to the House.

The Prime Minister: The conversations referred to were informal and exploratory. They had for their primary purpose an exchange of views on the desirability of holding an international Conference and on the form of co-operation which each country would advocate on such an occasion. I am glad to say that sufficient agreement was reached for both countries to support the holding of a Conference in the expectation that final dispositions could then be achieved. Concessions were made by both the United Kingdom

and the United States of America and related only to the basis on which discussions will be launched at an International Conference. It would not be appropriate or useful for me to make any detailed statement in advance of the Conference which both His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States hope will be held this year.

Sir O. Simmonds: Could my right hon. Friend explain the relation of these conversations to the Imperial conversations last year, and are any of these concessions in opposition to any of the main decisions made at the Imperial Conference?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the discussions which are now taking place with the representative of the United States are concerned with the holding of a conference, and not to any extent primarily with the topics to be discussed at that Conference.

Mr. Shinwell: When Lord Beaverbrook referred to concessions. as reported in the Press, are we to take it that he referred only to procedure, or perhaps to the personnel of the conference, and that there was no commitment of any kind in regard to details about civil aviation after the war?

The Prime Minister: I have said that the conversations were concerned with the desirability of holding an international conference, and the form of co-operation which each country would advocate on such an occasion. It is true that Lord Beaverbrook said that concessions had been made by this country within that sphere, and I have no doubt that concessions were made by the United States, and I think it a very good thing that both countries should be ready to make concessions in order to bring about a conference on the best possible lines. That would be very much better than boasting of achievements at this stage in such a delicate field.

Mr. Bowles: Is there any objection to the House and the country being told what policy the Government are going to advocate at the forthcoming conference?

The Prime Minister: I should like to consider that. I do not think we are in a position to advocate a particular policy at a particular moment. We must give our negotiators a chance, and it is better for us to see what other countries will


put forward before we unfold it all. Yet, on the other hand, I can also imagine that it might be an occasion for the House to wish to debate the matter in a general way without pinning our delegates down to any exact particulars.

Mr. Granville: Is it the intention of the Government to keep the Russian Government informed of this exchange of views in order that we may eventually reach a wide international agreement on civil aviation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but the first thing was to agree with the United States about the form in which the international conference should be held, and we are keeping the Russian Government fully informed on this matter and not only on this matter but on a very wide range of subjects.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend think it would do any harm and that it would be likely to lead to greater clarification of this issue if he embodied in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on these concessions so that we may know exactly what is meant?

The Prime Minister: It is a very good thing to state the case in that way but I should not be prepared to undertake to specify particular concessions. The other side might say "It was not a concession and we were going to agree to it anyhow," and so on, and out of what was intended to be an act of courtesy and I conceive of good diplomacy might come a stumbling block for the unwary.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (POST-WAR POLICIES)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister what consultations have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the U.S.A. regarding the nature and extent of the international organisation for the maintenance of peace and prevention of aggression referred to in Mr. Cordell Hull's broadcast of 9th April, 1944.

The Prime Minister: Preliminary exchanges of information on post-war questions are constantly taking place between various members of the 34 United Nations. But I cannot hold out expectations that

any agreed statement upon the subject mentioned in my hon. Friend's Question will be made in the near future. It is a topic which will not suffer at all from thought or well-considered discussion.

Mr. Ballenger: In view of Mr. Cordell Hull's statement in his broadcast that we are at a stage when much of the work of formulating plans for the organisation and maintenance of peace has been accomplished, would my right hon. Friend consider it advisable to consult the House and the country, who are interested to know whether those plans conflict with or conform to the Covenant of the League of Nations, which, I take it, is still operative?

The Prime Minister: I think that a great many people agree that Mr. Hull's speech was most helpful in that direction. There is undoubtedly a common building up of thought between Britain and the United States, and we have every intention of keeping other nations informed. I have to be careful to mention that because these matters are all for discussion and will be decided only at the end of the war. The hon. Gentleman perhaps remembers that I referred to this matter myself rather more than a year ago and' gave some indication showing that, so far as the British view is concerned, the great body of work achieved by the League of Nations and embodied in the League of Nations ought not to be lost.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does the Prime Minister think that England after the war will be a laud flowing with milk and honey?

Mr. Petherick: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in the course of these conversations that, though agreement for the maintenance of peace between the great Powers, assisted by some of the smaller Powers, is eminently desirable, no attempt should be made to revivify the defunct League of Nations, which failed of its own volition and its own weight?

The Prime Minister: I think that if the League of Nations had been properly backed up things might have been different.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE FEES (ORDER)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Lord President of the Council why the Order


in Council, Judicial Committee Fees, approved by His late Majesty, King Edward VIII, on 30th April, 1936, was not published till after a lapse of nearly eight years as Statutory Rule & Order, No. 192, of 1944; to what extent effect was given to this Order in Council during the period it was not published; and whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the first reference to the Order in Council of 1936, is contained in the Order in Council (S.R. & O., No. 193/L.14, of 1944), approved on 25th February, 1944, and published in April, 1944.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee): I am informed that, in connection with a recent amendment of the Judicial Committee Rules, 1925, the notice of the Editor of Statutory Rules & Orders was drawn to the fact that owing to inadvertence the Order in Council of the 30th April, 1936, to which my hon. Friend refers, was not at that time published as a Statutory Rule & Order. It was accordingly decided to issue it with the more recent amending Order. The Order of 1936 has had effect since the date of its approval; but it was published in the "London Gazette" on 8th May in that year and its provisions have in consequence been available to those affected by it. As regards the last part of the Question, my attention had not previously been drawn to the matter.

Sir H. Williams: Why is no reference made in the new Order in Council to publication in the "London Gazette" so that people may find what there was behind the Order in Council of 1936?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Gamekeepers (Dog Licences)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the damage and destruction caused to lambs by foxes, he will consider exempting from the payment of licence dogs kept by gamekeepers for the sole purpose of destroying foxes and so bring them into line with farmers who keep dogs for use with sheep.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I regret that I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's proposal.

Mr. Snadden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great destruction is caused by foxes and that terriers are kept for the purpose of destroying them, just as farmers keep dogs to look after their sheep; and cannot something be done to help in this matter?

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there are more dogs in the country there will be fewer sheep?

Sir J. Anderson: The facts may be as stated, but the suggested exemption would be exceedingly difficult to administer and would open the door to extensive evasion.

Excess Profits Tax

Mr. Petherick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way Government contractors who are paying excess profits tax and whose acumen and efficiency result in lowered costs are permitted to share with the State the financial benefits of their successful efforts.

Sir J. Anderson: If my hon. Friend's suggestion is that some special taxation relief should be granted to efficient businesses, I am afraid that that would be quite impracticable. I would point out, however, that the payment of Excess Profits Tax at 100 per cent. is subject to the allowance in due course of the Excess Profits Tax Post-war Credit of 20 per cent. of the tax paid at that rate, while Government contract policy is designed wherever practicable to give higher rates of profit to the more efficient contractors.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that the acumen and efficiency of many Government contractors enable them to avoid paying Excess Profits Tax?

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to now no firm has taken into its account as a credit the 20 per cent. to which he refers and that it has been regarded as a free sum of money with which firms can do anything?

Sir J. Anderson: A definite assurance has been given.

New Money (Creation)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in future have recourse to the creation of new money without interest instead of adding to the volume of bank advances to the Treasury as this would be no more inflationary and would cost the country less.

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Chancellor explain why it is preferable in the national interest to create new money with interest rather than create new money without?

Sir J. Anderson: My hon. Friend knows very well that I do not accept his monetary theories. He really cannot expect me to argue the matter with him at Question time.

OVERSEAS TRADE DEPARTMENT (STAFF)

Major Procter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied that the absence from the Department of Overseas Trade of its substantive Comptroller General is not acting as a deterrent to the development of a vigorous post-war policy on export trade; and if steps will be taken to return this official to his appropriate post where his experience can be fully utilised in the national interest.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Kendall) on 18th January last, to which I have nothing to add.

Major Procter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many restrictions on the export of our goods and, as it will require £200,000,000 per annum new exports to get the standard of life we had before the war, will he see—

Mr. Speaker: rose.

FOODSTUFFS (SUBSIDIES)

Mr. Dougglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount was spent last year on subsidising foodstuffs.

Sir J. Anderson: £204.4 millions was spent in the last financial year on subsidising foodstuffs. This includes a subsidy on fertilisers, as well as the operating loss incurred by the Ministry of War Transport on the carriage of imports of food to the United Kingdom, and also the cost of the National Milk Scheme, Milk in Schools Scheme and the Vitamins Schemes.

Mr. Wootton-Davies: Do these figures include the amount of money we have paid to our Allies for foodstuffs, over and above the prices charged by our own Colonies and Dominions?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir, they cover the whole field of the commodities in question.

Major Braithwaite: Can the right hon. Gentleman divide the sum which he has just given to the House to show how much has gone in direct subsidies to the farmers?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps a question might be put down on that subject.

COMMODITIES (SUBSIDIES)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any subsidies were granted last year to keep down the price of commodities other than foodstuffs; what were the commodities and what was the cost.

Sir J. Anderson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 22nd February to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Mr. Rostron Duckworth).

HANSARD (BOUND VOLUMES AND INDEX)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will supply the monthly index without additional charge to such regular subscribers to HANSARD as request it.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): There is no monthly index to HANSARD. As stated in my answer to the hon. Member on 5th April, there is an index to each volume which is published separately several weeks in advance of the hound volumes being available. This was introduced in 1940 for the convenience of Members when the free supply of the bound volumes was discontinued as a. war-time economy. Although it is available also to the public at 1s. a copy, only about 50 copies of each issue are sold. If it is continued as a permanency after the war, I would certainly be prepared to include it in the subscription price, but in the present serious paper shortage I do not feel justified in making it a free issue.

Mr. G. Strauss: Could the Minister take steps to make the index more accurate? It is most inaccurate.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS)

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Health how many medical practitioners there were under agreement with the insurance committees in. England and Wales on 1st January 1944.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): 16,319.

SOCIAL WELFARE AND ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEES (REPORTS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Social Welfare Advisory Committee and -the Economic Advisory Committee issue Reports available to the House; and if he will indicate the scope of each and the matters discussed.

Captain McEwen (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. In accordance with the usual practice of the Colonial Office Advisory Committees, the reports and recommendations of the social Welfare Advisory Committee and Economic Advisory Committee, which frequently deal with confidential subjects, are not normally made public. The Social Welfare Advisory Committee is, however, now preparing a pamphlet on future social welfare policy in the Colonies, which it is hoped can be published in due course. The terms of reference of these two Committees are, in general, to advise my right hon. and gallant Friend on such questions as he may refer to them with regard to problems of social welfare and economic policy respectively. A copy of the full terms of reference is being sent to the hon. Member for his information.

CHARLEY PIT BRICKWORKS (REOPENING)

Mr. James Glanville: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works what steps have been taken to reopen the Charley Pit brickworks, with a view to eliminating unnecessary waste of fuel and man-power.

Mr. Young (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The Charley Pit brickworks were put on to a care and maintenance basis under the Bricks (Control) Order of October, 1942, and in

accordance with the policy and procedure recommended to my Noble Friend by the National Brick Advisory Council. The present output of bricks in county Durham is roughly equal to the present demand in that area, and there are in addition stocks in hand equivalent to 5½ months' demand. My Noble Friend does not consider that in these circumstances grounds exist for increasing the output of bricks in county Durham.

Mr. Glanville: Is the Minister aware that-output of coal has been hindered because of this state of affairs?

Mr. Young: I am not aware of it, until I have made the necessary inquiries.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' HOUSES, LLEYN

Major Sir Goronwy Owen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he is aware that, in spite of repeated promises, his Ministry has failed to ensure the supply of materials for the erection of houses for agricultural workers and that, in consequence, the Lleyn Rural District Council are unable to complete their quota of houses; and will he take immediate steps to see that the necessary materials are supplied without further delay.

Mr. Young: The Ministry of Works were asked by the Ministry of Health to arrange central purchase for certain fittings. Local authorities were informed that the Ministry could not guarantee delivery unless application were sent in by the 29th July, 1943. Lleyn Rural District Council did not send in their application until the 20th December, 1943, but I understand that the articles in question have now been delivered.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Attlee.]

Sir H. Williams: If the Motion is carried, may I ask whether it is intended—

Mr. Speaker: The Motion cannot be discussed. Moreover, I have,already put it, and have collected the voices.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the increase of certain pensions payable in respect of public service, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any additional sums required to be paid out of such moneys for the purpose of any increase which may be authorised by the said Act to be made, in respect of any period after the 31st day of December, 1943, in any pension payable out of the Exchequer or out of the Education (Scotland) Fund, in respect of any pensioner whose income does not exceed such limit as may be provided by the said Act, being a pension payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1943, the Elementary School Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1898 to 1912, the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1939, the Education (Scotland) (Superannuation) Acts, 1919 to 1939, Section 29 of the Finance Act, 1932, or the enactments relating to the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Provided that in the case of any pension payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1g43, which does not exceed such amount as may be prescribed by the said Act, an increase may be authorised without regard to the income of the pensioner.

Resolution agreed to.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Increase of certain pensions payable in respect of public service.)

General Sir George Jeffreys (Peters-field): I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, at the end, to insert:
Provided that an appropriate instrument shall authorise payments of pensions on an increased scale to persons who have been in

receipt of such pensions in respect of service in the Armed Forces so that their pensions in addition to any increases that may be granted shall be not less than the basic rates applicable to their rank and service under the Royal Warrant of 1919.
I wish to call attention to the desirability of publishing at least the purport of the provisions of the proposed instruments—Royal Warrants, Orders in Council, or King's Orders, as the case may be—which, for convenience. I will refer to as Royal Warrants. The provisions of them are customarily identical for the three Services. I quite understand that the actual text of such instruments cannot be published. They are the conveyance of the Sovereign's will towards those serving in the Armed Forces and they cannot be published textually, hut surely something more definite can be stated as to the proposed contents of the instruments than a mere intimation that the terms will be similar or will correspond approximately—to use the expression employed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to the two scales in the Bill.
Such a definite statement seems to me to be the more necessary in view of the doubts as to the effect of the Royal Warrant of 1919 which have undoubtedly prevailed. I would like to read the terms of that Warrant, and again say that they correspond exactly with the. instruments for the other two Services. The first paragraph is as follows:
The new rates shown in the following tables are granted in consideration of the present high cost of living, and the rates of pay, half-pay and retired pay will be subject, after five years, to revision, either upwards or downwards to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent., according as the cost of living rises or falls. After 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years.
As regards that Royal Warrant, there have been a very great deal of doubt and apparently actual mistakes in interpreting its terms. The Treasury interpretation of the terms of that Warrant are materially different from that of the Services and the pensioners. The main differences are two. One is over the meaning of "not exceeding 20 per cent." and the other is over the words "a further revision may take place." "May" appears to be, and I suppose we must take it to be, permissive. It permits a further revision and, according to my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, permits stabilisation at any point which may be selected. I imagine that "may" is not


meant in the fortuitous sense that "it may happen," but I think it should be noted that for the first five years, it was stated, the rates would rise and fall, and they duly fell. Afterwards, it is stated, they may be further revised, and so long as the cost of living fell they were further revised in a downward direction.
The Services, doubtless mistakenly, expected a corresponding rise when the cost of living rose, but surely, the new Warrant should be so clear as to permit of no misinterpretation, either by the Services or anybody else affected. It should be in the plainest of plain English. The promise should be, I venture to say, definite, and there should be nothing permissive which may seem to give the Treasury the option of whether they will put it into practice or not. Still less, should the terms be in any way fortuitous or capable of being interpreted in one way by. the Treasury and in another way by the doubtless less astute intelligence of officers in the Services. As it is, it seems to me that a pig in a poke is being offered. It may be satisfactory, or unsatisfactory, but either way it must be taken without being looked into. I hope it will be a very good pig, but I have some doubts on the subject. Again I would urge clarity and an early publication of a précis of the terms. I know that the actual terms cannot be published, but the purport of those terms might be communicated to the House.
Clause 1 provides for increases to the smaller pensioners, and so far as those of them who retired under the 1919 Royal Warrant are concerned, it seems that under the Bill, and subject to certain tests—on which there will no doubt be discussions on a later Clause—they will get increases exceeding their former reductions. I do not, therefore, wish to press this Amendment, but I ask for clear and unequivocal consideration of it, and a statement at the earliest possible moment of what the terms will be. I would add that Parliament should be able to consider the effects of the Bill in detail so far as the Armed Forces are concerned. At present we have only the assurance that the terms will be substantially the same as those for the Civil Service and others affected by the Bill.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I wish very briefly to support the Amendment which

has been so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys). There are really two points to this Amendment. The first is that the position of the retired officer ought not to be left to a casual and incidental reference in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill. Something much more positive than that is required if the retired officers and men are to know where they stand. The second point is that, under Parliamentary procedure we are not allowed the liberty or the opportunity of discussing the terms of a Royal Warrant when it has once been signed. Therefore, if the men and the officers are to know what is to happen to them under this Bill we ought to know in this House before we part with the Bill exactly what will happen in that area of the pension field. We are not told that, either in the Bill or in the explanatory memorandum. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that something more precise and clear is necessary. I hope that the moving of this Amendment, which it is not desired to press to a Division, will elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement that can be understood, not only by Members of Parliament but by the men who will be affected by this Clause of the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I think I can deal quite briefly with the points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) rather complained that the position of the retired officer had been dealt with merely by a casual reference in the memorandum. He realises, I am sure, as well as anybody that the retired officer is not dealt with in this Bill at all and therefore, it would have been, I should have thought, inappropriate to go into great detail in the memorandum on a matter entirely outside the scope of the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys) said something about officers being invited to buy a pig in a poke. In these days of food shortage, pigs, whether in or out of pokes, are not unwelcome. But I think I can readily dispose of the misgivings of both my hon. Friends by saying simply this—it has been said before, and I will repeat it—that the position of officers who, for technical reasons, cannot be dealt with in this Bill but must be dealt with by Royal


Warrant, will be adjusted by the terms of the Royal Warrant in such a way as to correspond exactly with the provisions of this Bill, so that the Committee may have the assurance, in dealing with Amendments to the Bill that while they will be specifically dealing only with those classes of pensioners who are within the scope of the Bill they will at the same time, by virtue of the assurance I am now giving, be making a corresponding provision for officers.

Amendment negatived.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Assheton): I beg to move, in page line 14, to leave out from "has," to "two," in line 15, and to insert "at least one dependant."
Under the Bill as it was presented to Parliament a pensioner might obtain the benefit of the higher scales of increase set out in paragraph (2) of the Second Schedule if, although he was unmarried, he could show that at least one person under the age of 16 was dependent upon him. Similarly, a woman pensioner with a dependant under i6 might obtain an increase at an earlier age than was otherwise contemplated by the Bill. The present Amendment forms part of a series put down in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the object of extending the benefits to pensioners who have certain dependants other than children under the the age of i6. It is proposed that a pensioner shall be entitled to these benefits whenever he can show that he has a dependant as defined by the proposed new Sub-section (5). The concession also enables a woman pensioner with a dependant to qualify for an increase at an earlier age than is otherwise contemplated by the Bill.
In order to establish that a person is a dependant for the purposes of the Subsection it must first be shown that he is wholly or mainly supported by the pensioner. This condition is obviously important, because the whole object of the higher scales is to give a special relief to pensioners whose domestic circumstances are such that they have special calls upon their incomes. There may be some cases, however, in which a person wholly or mainly supported by the pensioner has means of his own. The proposed subsection provides that a person shall not be regarded as dependent if he has independent resources amounting to more than

£52 a year. Under paragraph (a) of the proposed new Sub-section any person who has not attained the age of 16 years or who, if he has attained that age, is still receiving full-time education or training will, if he is wholly or mainly supported by the pensioner, and if his income does not exceed the prescribed limit I have mentioned, be counted as a dependant. It will not be necessary to show that any such person is the child of the pensioner or even his adopted child or illegitimate child. In paragraph (b) of the Sub-section a father, mother, child, uncle or aunt of the pensioner may be regarded as a dependant, and paragraph (c) will bring in brothers and sisters, nephews and nieces and grandchildren. Moreover, the subsection goes on to provide that—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but the right hon. Gentleman appears now to be referring to a later Clause. I do not know whether it is the desire of the Committee that we should discuss all these matters together, but if that is the case we must not have too long a discussion on subsequent Amendments when they are moved.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Obviously, all these Amendments hang together and I would certainly support the suggestion that we should discuss this whole question at one time.

The Chairman: If the Committee understand the position I am, of course, quite agreeable.

Mr. Assheton: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee that we should deal with the matter in this way, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and other hon. Members who have put down Amendments on this matter will be satisfied that the proposals made under the various Amendments which you, Major Milner, have been good enough to allow us to discuss together do, in fact, meet all the requests which were made upon the Second Reading of the Bill and do give a wide and generous definition of "dependants".

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made himself responsible for putting down these Amendments. When the Bill was introduced I realised that in this respect


it was inadequate. There have been many other Statutes in which the question of a dependant has been raised and the definition there has been wider than the definition proposed in the Bill, which in my opinion was a very narrow one. I saw no reason why the definition should not be widened, and put down an Amendment to remove the words "under 16 years of age". The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not accept that proposal in those precise terms, but I think the Committee will share my view that in substance he has accepted my Amendment, and in the sub-section which you, Major Milner, have allowed us to refer to the precise definition of dependants which the Chancellor is prepared to include is stated.
Looking over the categories of persons who are covered I feel that a rather peculiar method has been adopted. Grandchildren or nephews or nieces have been brought in as other than someone in the previous category, and the previous category includes aunts and uncles, and as far as I can make out the only relatives who are excluded are grandparents. As the pensioners are presumbly elderly people I feel the Chancellor came to the conclusion that it would be a little otiose to include grandparents. Still, we do not know how long people may live in the days to come. We do not want to back to the days of Methuselah, but we may get people living to over 100. No doubt if such an occasion does arise those who are administering the Bill will cast a favourable eye upon the case of the grandparent of the elderly pensioner and do something about it. Apart from that point, which I do not put very seriously, I welcome most heartily the decision of the Chancellor to amend the Bill by widening the definition of dependants, and I hope that the Committee will accept it in the same spirit.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I have a general point to make about the Amendment and also a particular point. The general point is that, in my opinion, it is quite improper to make the grant of increased pensions in any way contingent upon whether a pensioner has dependants or not. In 1922 the House of Commons insisted upon making pensions fall as the cost of living fell. There was then no question of relating the incidence of that fall to whether the pensioner had a depen-

dant or not. The House of Commons insisted, and the Government carried out the project, that all pensions had to come down automatically and mathematically, whether the pensioner had, any person dependent upon him or not, and, in my opinion, it seems to be monstrously wrong that we should import into this Bill the consideration of whether a pensioner has a dependant or not. Therefore, I cannot speak of this Amendment in the terms of eulogy which have been used by that defender of the proletariat the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). I think it is a bad Clause and that the Amendment does not put it right, but inasmuch as the Amendment makes at least some improvement in the situation I am not disposed to divide the Committee against it.
On the particular point, I wish to ask whether housekeepers are covered by the Amendment and the additional Subsection which we shall be discussing later. We seem to have covered most of the relatives except the grandparents, but there are many pensioners who are being looked after not by a relative but by a housekeeper. They maintain the housekeeper, and I imagine they will be eligible for relief in respect of the Income Tax allowances for housekeepers, but I do not see that housekeepers are specifically provided for here, and I should like an assurance that. a housekeeper who is not related by blood to the pensioner would count as a dependant.

Mr. Assheton: The answer is that the housekeeper is not covered. Dependants are those for whom the pensioner has some sort of moral responsibility on account of their being relatives. There is no question of a housekeeper being covered. The circumstances are wholly different from those in connection with Income Tax which the hon. Member mentioned.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is not a question of moral obligation but of physical subsistence? Some of these pensioners are aged and ill, are very sick people, and they must have a housekeeper to look after them. In those circumstances surely it is quite improper to refuse to regard a housekeeper as a dependant for the purposes of this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: In some dozen places in the


Bill we have references to "at least one dependant." Surely this does not mean that unless a pensioner had a dependant he cannot get any increase in pension. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position, because it would save a great deal of time if that were done.

Mr. Assheton: There is nothing in the point which my hon. and gallant Friend makes. This is designed to define what is a dependant, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will study the Bill carefully he will see that a pensioner who has a dependant, is put in the same position as a married pensioner, and is entitled, therefore, to a higher level of pension. It does not mean that because a pensioner has no dependant he gets no increase at all.

Sir W. Allen: I am very glad to hear that. It certainly clarifies the position, although it is not clear, in the context of the Bill, that a pensioner without a dependant receives the addition. I have had some extraordinary cases put before me with regard to this and I am, therefore, glad to have the explanation that even if a pensioner has no one dependent on him, he is entitled to receive the increase of pension.

Mr. Loftus: I only intervene for a moment on one point. I must say I sympathise with the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). We are legislating for two years and the point I want to bring in is that, inevitably, we shall have children's allowances in this country.

Sir Adam Maitland: Is not this Clause in effect a limitation Clause? Only those people who are named as dependants will be considered. I would like a little more attention to be given to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), for, as I gather, only those people mentioned in the Sub-section would, in fact, be regarded as dependants. There may, of course, be other cases like the housekeeper, and, as my hon. Friend said, several other people who are not specified in the Sub-section and the person concerned would not then have the benefit.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: In reference to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen), I

think the Financial Secretary used words which might be misunderstood. He said there was no question of a person being denied an increase of pension because there was no dependant. Those words are not quite correct. If a person is over the limit at which a man can obtain a pension when he is single, but below the limit when he would get the increase of pension if he were married, or had a dependant, then it is true the limitation does prevent that man getting the pension. The fact is, however, that the pensions are higher within the same category for persons who have dependants or are married, and that, above a certain figure, there would be people who would have got a pension had they a dependant or were married, but who will not get a pension under the Bill as it stands. I mention that for the sake of accuracy; otherwise the Financial Secretary's statement might be misunderstood.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: May I he allowed to put one question to the Financial Secretary for clarification? The pensioners in this Clause are clearly defined in the Explanatory Memorandum, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a categorical assurance with regard to the increase of pensions for officers. But I cannot see that either of those two categories deals with the question of pensions for warrant officers or non-commissioned officers. I should be grateful if the Financial Secretary would tell us what are the proposals for the increase or corresponding amendment of the pensions of those two categories.

Mr. Douglas: I want to refer again to the question relating to a dependant of a pensioner, excluding a housekeeper. It is perfectly true that a housekeeper is not a dependant. A housekeeper is somebody who is employed, but that is not sufficient to get rid of the point which has been raised. The reason why the dependant is introduced in this matter at all, is because it is a test of need, and because if a pensioner has a dependant, therefore his need is greater. But precisely the same argument applies where the pensioner is so infirm or crippled that he has to have a housekeeper to look after him. That is the principle which operates in the Income Tax Act. An allowance is given in respect


of a housekeeper, just as it is given in respect of a child or certain other dependants, and I do suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those arguments are equally valid in this connection. It is a question of need. He bases his Bill upon the assumption that beyond a certain figure there is no need at all, or there is no need unless the pensioner has a larger drain upon his resources because he has dependants. But if a pensioner is so infirm that he has to have a housekeeper then his position, also, is one of increased need, and I ask that that point be reconsidered.

Sir W. Allen: May put a concrete case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It is the case of a widow who is in receipt of the princely pension of £17 a year. She has no one dependant upon her. She has to live on that and any help her neighbours can give her. She is practically in rags and gets very little food. I want to know, definitely, whether that widow is, or is not, entitled to the increase of pension under this Bill.

Sir J. Anderson: As my hon. Friend referred to me, let me reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said My mind went back to the time when a very good friend of mine was in the place I now occupy. Let me reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has just said. If my hon. Friend will look at the terms he will see that a pensioner, whose pension does not exceed £75 a year will get the same increase whether or not that pensioner has a dependant. That, I think, covers the point.

Sir W. Allen: That entirely covers my point, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page r, line 15, to leave out "two hundred and fifty" and to insert "three hmidred."

Mr. Gledhill: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Chairman? Is it the intention to discuss this Amendment and the next two together?

The Chairman: I have no objection of it would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Sir J. Anderson: I hope the Committee will agree that it will be convenient, in dealing with this particular Amendment which stands in my name, to deal with all the other Amendments which form, in fact, one proposal for the improvement of the terms of this Bill. In the Bill as originally introduced, certain limits were prescribed both as regards the rate of increase to be granted in the two cases of a pensioner with dependants and a pensioner without dependants and, also, in regard to the limit beyond which no increase should be granted. The Bill, as introduced, placed the limit in the case of the pensioner with dependants at £250 a year, and this Amendment raises that limit to 300£ a year. In the case of the pensioner without dependants, the limit in the Bill, which was £175, is increased to £225 a year—substantial increases, as the Committee will observe, in both cases. Together with that Amendment, I propose to amend the scale of increases for which provision was made in the Bill, and I think it will be convenient to refer also to that matter now. The original scale provided for a maximum rate of increase of 25 per cent. up to a certain limit and an increase of 20 per cent. between that limit and the ultimate limit above which no increase is to be given. The scale of increase which I now propose—

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am sorry to raise a point of Order here. I think we were wise to allow the discussion to broaden itself earlier, but I do not think that is enough. The Amendment with which the Chancellor is dealing is a simple one and relates to one point only—the ceiling beyond which, if a man possesses a salary, he is disqualified in part or in whole from receipt of a pension. I submit that where that line should be drawn, is quite different and separate from any argument as to what the amount shall be, and that we should deal with the increases quite separately later on, bemuse there are a number of Amendments on the Paper in that connection.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I think that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to confine himself to the upper limit now and the change in the upper limit and deal with the increases later on it would be better. These matters could be more appropriately dealt with separately.

Sir J. Anderson: It does affect the application of the ceiling, but if it is thought


to be more convenient to deal with the scale of increases later, I am perfectly content. As I was saying, I have proposed these increases in the limits from £250 to £300 in the case of the pensioner with dependants, and from £175 to £225 in the case of the pensioner without dependants. I would point out that the Bill makes provision whereby, in applying the proposed increases, other income up to £52 a year may be disregarded, so that the effect of my proposal is that a pensioner with a pension up to £300 a year, if he has dependants, may also have other income up to £52 a year. That is to say, a pensioner who has up to £352 a year of total income will qualify under this Bill for some increase.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It cannot be raised above that figure.

Sir J. Anderson: He cannot get anything beyond £350 a year, but, up to that figure, he is entitled, under the Bill, to an increase. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important to be absolutely accurate, but I think that what I have said is correct. I have had under consideration, from the outset, what I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the object is to provide for cases of really severe hardship. I suggest that, in raising the limit—and I am now dealing with the pension of those with dependants—from £250 a year to £300, and keeping in mind what I have said about disregard of other income, I have gone as far as it would be reasonable to go, consistent with the general purpose of the Bill as it was defined on Second Reading. I am, it is true, making provision by a Bill which will operate only for two years, but no one can doubt that similar provisions will continue so long as the circumstances justify them. When one bears in mind that the financing of this Measure will have to be secured by.means of taxation, which goes down at present to quite a low level, and that there are many classes of taxpayers on fixed incomes, who will have to pay Income Tax and who have no means of obtaining any increase in their emoluments as the result of changed economic conditions, I hope that the Committee will agree that the limit which is now suggested is a reasonable one.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit, after the facts have been put

before him, to propose this Amendment. When the Bill was introduced, I felt that the limits were too low. I was moved to that consideration by this fact, which I would beg the Committee to appreciate. A cursory reading of the Bill would suggest that a married person with an income of £250 a year would be entitled, under the Bill, to an increase of 20 per cent. That was not correct, because the £250 was not the ceiling of a man who was entitled to a 20 per cent. increase, but was the total ceiling up to which his pension increase could bring him. That was why I ventured to correct the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had, if I may say so somewhat incorrectly stated the position. Under his proposal, a man with £300 of pension and, let us say, £52 as well of, if the right hon. Gentleman likes, unearned income, did not get any increase at all. The man below £300 would get his income raised to £300, but that was the ceiling. Feeling that this limit was too low, and to prevent anyone reading the Bill from getting too optimistic an impression, I put down an Amendment, which is on the Order Paper, to increase the upper limit from £250 to £350, with a similar increase for the single person from £175 to £250. Under my Amendment such persons would not have got the full 20 per cent. increase, but only to per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has adopted a different method of dealing with the question. He has not seen fit to go as far, in raising the ceiling, as I proposed, but he proposes to give the benefit of the full 20 per cent. increase, in so far as it is applicable, instead of the 10 per cent. which I suggested.
I would like to explain why I am prepared to accept the method which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed. The principal beneficiaries from either the scheme which I proposed or that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward, are not the people above the old limit, but the people below the old limit, because both in the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in my Amendment the people below the old ceiling will, for the first time, all get the benefit of the full 20 per cent. increase. They will be a very large proportion of those who would benefit from either his Amendment or from mine, When you come to those above the old ceiling, under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,


for a time they will, although they are slightly above the ceiling, get more money by his Amendment than they would by mine because they will get the 20 per cent., instead of 10 per cent. Ultimately, they will reach the new ceiling put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then they will get less by his Amendment than they would have got by mine. It is very difficult to make a point of this kind appreciable by verbal explanation, but, for a very large proportion, his proposal will bring more benefit than mine would have done, for a small number, it will not make any difference which method is adopted; and, for the rest, mine would be better than his. For a number of reasons, I think the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a very good one, and I hope that it will be accepted. I anticipate that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will argue that the ceiling is far too low.

Mr. W. J. Brown: In that anticipation my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I share some of the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point. I would like to see, if we could get the money, and the goods which would be represented by it, from another planet, pensions increased in all cases at least to keep pace with the cost of living. To that extent, I am wholly in agreement with the arguments which I imagine will be put forward by the hon. Member for Rugby. But I am bound to face the facts of to-day. There are large numbers of people, some of whom come only very narrowly outside this Bill, like employees of public authorities, who are not strictly within the four corners of this Bill—and about whom something may be said later—and employees of private concerns, who get no increases to meet their responsibilities, and others, who are all going to be taxed in effect to meet this concession, legitimately, I think, because these are persons for whom the State is directly responsible. I am not prepared to push the ceiling up to the sky, and to give people with large incomes a benefit which other people, who have not been servants of the State, and who may have smaller incomes, are not in a position to get. Although I put down these Amendments of mine for raising the ceiling, I support the argument, within limits, for not raising the ceiling any further.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt this love-feast between the two Front Benches, which, it seems, is going to be a characteristic feature of the Debates in this Committee to-day, but I wish to express a point of view quite different from that expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or that expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). This Clause originally contained a provision for a certain ceiling to the Bill, the idea being that pensioners who had incomes above a certain limit should not be qualified for benefit under the Bill. The Chancellor has moved an Amendment to increase that ceiling slightly, and he has received the approbation of my right hon. Friend. I do not think that there ought to be any ceiling in this Bill, and I put down an Amendment, which you, Major Milner, felt that you ought not to call, because of the terms of the Financial Resolution. That Amendment provided for the deletion of the ceiling altogether. I think it ought to be deleted altogether, because, when pensions were being reduced because the cost of living was falling, there was no question of putting a floor to the reduction. If you do not put a floor to a reduction, you have no moral right whatever to put a ceiling to the increase when the cost of living goes the other way. The truth is that this is a thoroughly immoral Bill, and, when we come to the Third Reading, I am going to characterise it in language which I trust will scarify and cauterise the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a way that he will never forget. This ceiling ought not to be here, and it is not put right by slightly adjusting it in the way that this Amendment does.
I found nauseating in the extreme the language of the Chancellor and the language of my right hon. Friend on the subject of the burden of the taxpayer in this connection. This Bill is estimated to cost about £5,000,000 a year. It is a tiny Bill, compared with the scale of war-time expenditure in other directions, and, although it may be necessary to introduce the effect on the taxpayer when we are dealing with questions involving hundreds of millions of pounds, I submit that if there is a case where we might have omitted that argument, the case of the poor old pensioner is the one. Failing to get a discussion on the abolition of the ceiling, owing to the narrow terms in


which the Financial Resolution is drawn, I put down other Amendments, to raise the ceiling very much above that proposed by either the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend. If the Committee will look at page 957 of the Order Paper, they will see that I proposed a ceiling of £500 where there is a dependant and of £350 where there is not. At the end of the Second Reading of this Bill, we were assured by the Financial Secretary, who wound up the Debate, that, when we got to the Committee stage, we should be able to deal with all these issues, discuss them and amend them. I want to ask the Chancellor how can I get my Amendment, which proposes to raise the ceiling up to £500, before this Committee, so that the Committee can be given an opportunity of discussing it. I am sure that the opinion of many hon. Members will be that the situation is not met by the Clause as originally drafted, and is not met either by the Amendment now before the Committee. Therefore the Committee should have an opportunity of debating what is a much more comprehensive Amendment.

The Chairman: When the Question is put to insert a certain figure, it will, of course, be competent for the Committee to defeat the Amendment, and, in that event, it will be possible for the hon. Member to move his own Amendment to make the figure £500.

Mr. Brown: In order to bring my Amendment to the notice of the Committee, I must divide the Committee and have this Amendment defeated? I am much obliged.

The Chairman: It is not necessary for the hon. Member to bring his Amendment to the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member has already done so, but in order to get a decision on it, it would be necessary to take this Amendment to a Division if the hon. Member wished to do so.

Mr. Gledhill: While I certainly support the Amendment to increase the ceiling and bring in more pensioners, I find myself sympathising much more strongly with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). The Chancellor is fixing a ceiling in this Clause, and then spoiling the whole effect by exempting the civil servants in a later Clause. This raises a feeling of injustice, which has

been put to me by the retired teachers—mostly retired head teachers, who are on a figure round about £250. They will be completely debarred from any increase. They ask me why this advantage should be given in the case of retired civil servants and not in the case of retired teachers. They point out that their contributions have been paid just as others were paid when the purchasing power of money was greater than it is to-day. Now, when the cost of living has increased so rapidly, and they have to pay higher taxation, they fail entirely to see why they should be debarred from the benefits of this Bill. It is true that, under this Amendment, a number of people are brought in, but those over £300 or so are automatically shut out. In a recent Debate, the Government said they could not give teachers equal pay because it would bring in civil servants as well. Surely, the converse is equally true—that you cannot give a benefit to civil servants that you do not give to teachers?

Sir A. Maitland: I do not think the Chancellor need be unduly alarmed by the strictures which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) promises at a later stage. I think the assumption is that, as far as he is concerned, in this matter he will have support and the continued confidence of the country. I do not think it is a very cogent or convincing argument that only a comparatively small sum is involved. We have many problems to deal with, and it is very important that we should have the benefit of the Chancellor's views on the respective merits or demerits of all problems from the financial point of view. It is, I think, only right to refer to the fact that some of this increase of pension will in part be borne by people who are in receipt of less income than those to whom the increase may be given.
I do not think it is at all wrong for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to draw attention to the claims of all people who are concerned in these matters; and indeed it is on that aspect I wish to ask a question. I wish to ask the Chancellor about a point arising from the Bill, which deals with the pensions granted for services to the State or local authorities. I want to ask the Chancellor whether, in view of the additional burdens being imposed upon them, he has consulted the local authorities and whether they are agree-


able to the change? I think it right they should be so consulted.

Sir J. Anderson: To take first the point just raised by the hon. Member for Faversham {Sir A. Maitland), whose support I am very glad to have, it is, of course, the fact that, before this Bill was introduced, there were consultations in the usual way with the associations of local government authorities, and these associations, I understand, were generally in favour of the proposals in the Bill. There are two other points made in speeches since I last addressed the Committee, with which I should like to deal. My hon. Friend opposite raised the question of the inclusion of the provisions of Clause 2. He wondered why the provisions of Clause 2 were limited as they are, and what sort' of case there could be for giving more liberal treatment to certain classes of public servants, notably civil servants, together with the retired officers in whom the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) is interested, in comparison with the position of local authority employees. I did explain, I hope adequately, on the Second Reading, how Clause 2 came to be in the Bill. It is not on all fours with the other provisions of the Bill, but it represents provisions which were inserted in an attempt to meet, so far as I thought it practicable to meet it, the sense of grievance that had been expressed on behalf of those pensioners whose pensions had been subject to fluctuation with the cost of living figure until stabilisation was decided upon in 1935. That is the whole explanation of the special provisions of Clause 2. I would like to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who said he found it quite nauseating that I should bring in any arguments with reference to the burdens which taxpayers on the lowest levels are being called upon to bear.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I said I found it nauseating that the right hon. Gentleman should bring it in on this case.

Sir J. Anderson: I bring it in in this case for a very good reason. I have to take a wider view than my hon. Friend, and I have received many representations from people who fear, sometimes with an element of justice, that they are being hardly used. I do not think it is right

that we should go out of our way to create a sense of grievance on the part of people who are responding so magnificently to the demands made upon them. I say without any hesitation that if we gave, at the expense of the taxpayer, uncovenanted benefits to people already better off than those on whom tax burdens are being laid, we should certainly be making a change for the worse in the attitude of the people in this country, which hitherto has been beyond all praise.

Mr. Bowles: How much more does the Chancellor estimate it will cost if the ceiling is raised to £5O0?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not got the figures, but I think I have made it clear that the argument, from my point of view, does not rest solely on additional cost.

Mr. Gledhill: That does not satisfy the objections which hon. Members have made. There are two classes of pensioners, some receiving a higher and the others a smaller amount. If you give an increase to those receiving the higher rate, it will raise a feeling of injustice.

Sir J. Anderson: I referred to what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, in giving reasons why different treatment is being given. Let me say that what has been said about the attitude of the teachers does support, very strongly, the argument for looking at all classes of taxpayers, who have to be persuaded that, as far as is practicable, they are being equitably dealt with. But there is a material difference between the teachers and the civil servants to whom Clause 2 applies. In the case of the civil servant, as in the case of retired officers, the pension was subject to fluctuation according to changes in the cost of living figure, and these were at a certain point stabilised so that when the cost of living began to rise the pensions of these persons were not automatically increased. I do not consider that there was any breach of faith in the decision to stabilise, which was taken after full consideration in 1935. But there was undoubtedly a sense of grievance which I thought it desirable to try to remove as far as possible. The point for teachers to bear in mind is that they were not subject to the conditions described in this House more than once and which constituted the justification for Clause 2.

Mr. Lipson: The Chancellor's Amendment proposes to raise the ceiling to £300, but, in his speech, the right hon. Gentleman made play of the fact that £52 of other income—to those having it—is exempt, so that, in fact, the figure is £352. The assumption is that he thought this £352 was a reasonable ceiling. That is all very well for those people with other income. What is the position of those whose sole income is that £300? Would it not be fairer to extend the ceiling to £350 and not provide exemption for those with other income?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not know, but I should have thought that the provision, which appears in this Bill for the first time and was not in the two Bills which this House approved after the last war—under which a certain amount of private income can be disregarded—would have been considered as in line with other decisions taken about private income—in connection, for example, with supplementary pensions and Public Assistance Board grants—and would have been regarded as welcome. That is the reason why I am merely calling attention to the existence of that provision. The ceiling of pension provided in the Bill is £300.

Mr. Burden: The Chancellor has told the Committee what is being done for those servants whose pensions have been reduced as the cost of living figure fell. Those who have fluctuating pensions had a very substantial case. The Chancellor's argument, quite rightly, is that those superannuation classes who have not been subjected to decreases in a similar way, should not receive the benefits of Clause 2. But if that argument is valid, surely those classes whose pensions have been subject to fluctuation should receive the benefit of Clause 2? I refer to a number of local government servants whose pensions have fallen owing to the operation of the cost of living scale, and the Chancellor is really getting it both ways. I suggest to him that he might give consideration to those local government servants, whose pensions have been subjected to reductions owing to falls in the cost of living figure, and that he might put that right at a later stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 16, to leave out "one hundred and seventy-five," and insert "two hundred and twenty-five." [Sir J. Anderson.]

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On a point of Order. I do not propose to move the next Amendment which stands in my name and that of hon. Friends—in page 1, line 17, at end, insert—
(2) For the purposes of this Act a dependent person means a person in respect of whom section twenty-one or section twenty-two of the Finance Act, 1920, or section twenty or section twenty-one of the Finance Act, 1938, a deduction may be made in the assessment of income tax.
—as it deals with the question of the child under i6 and we have really covered the point.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page r, line r8, to leave out Sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5).

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we have a short Debate on these various tests on this Amendment.

Mr. Brown: I am obliged. The effect of the Amendment, which is in my name and that of other hon.' Members, is to leave out the Sub-sections mentioned. The effect of these Sub-sections is to make the grant of an increased pension depend upon a number of diverse qualifications. One of the qualifications is that the pensioner must have attained the age of 60 years. If he has not attained the age of 60, he does not get benefit under the Bill. Another qualification is that the pensioner is a woman "upon whom at least one person under the age of 16 is dependent." We have taken out "up to 16 years" presumably, but she still has to have a dependant. A further qualification is that the pension authority shall be satisfied that the pensioner is "disabled by physical or mental infirmity." All these are hurdles to the attainment of the increase in pension given under the Bill.
It rather looks as if whoever drafted this Bill began by saying to himself (1) "How little can we possibly give?" and (2) "How many people can we disqualify from even the narrow range of benefit that


we propose? "There are imported all these elements, which my Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill, as conditions of entitlement to increased benefit. I now make the point—I have made it twice already, and I shall have to make it many times during the day—that when this House and the Government brought pensions down when the cost of living fell, there was no question, then, of importing all sorts of qualifications; no question of an age clause or a dependancy clause, or a physical or mental infirmity clause. There was a clear cut decision by the Government that, if the cost of living fell, then all pensions, large and small, of persons with dependants or without, whether well or sick, automatically had to come down.

Mr. Molson: Surely, this Clause deals with a large number of pensions which, in fact, have not been reduced in accordance 'with the fall in the cost of living.

Mr. Brown: There is no qualification at all in these whether they they have been increased or decreased by the rise or fall in the cost of living. Who are the categories with whom we are dealing? Let us translate it from the general to the particular. In the Civil Service, probably the largest single category, all pensions have been reduced because of decline in the cost of living. In the case of Army officers and men, all pensions have been reduced because of decrease in cost of living.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I correct the hon. Member? As regards the Army and the Services generally, all pensions have not been reduced; the pensions of other ranks, generally speaking, were not reduced. The pensions of all officers who retired under a certain series of Warrants and Orders in Council, that is, since 1919, have been reduced, but it is not quite correct to say that this first class does not include any officers. It includes the smaller pensioners, quite a number of junior officers, and particularly officers promoted from the ranks, quarter-masters and so forth.

Mr. Brown: The short answer to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite is that, if it be true that there are some people incidentally covered whose pensions have not been decreased—and if

there are, I do not know who they are—it is certainly the fact that the overwhelming majority of the persons dealt with in this Bill are those whose pensions have been reduced because of the decline in the cost of living, and when they were reduced none of these qualifications was in force. What is the effect of the Clause as it stands unless we knock out these sub-sections? Take, first of all, the police officers. You may become a policeman in Britain at the age of 21 or thereabouts. You may complete your 25 years of service and retire on pension from the age 45 or 46. Suppose a man has completed his 25 years and has gone out on pension, the value of that pension has been enormously reduced by the rise in the cost of living. The first sub-section here will deny that policeman a penny of benefit under the Bill, solely because he has not reached the age of 60 years, and 60 years was never the retiring age of a policeman. Prison officers have had their pensions reduced because of a decline in the cost of living. Their retiring age is 55, but no retired prison officer, unless he has reached the age of 60, is entitled to a penny of benefit under the Bill. I cannot speak with the same weight of authority of the teaching profession or the local government service, but there are probably substantial numbers in those professions who, for one reason or another, have retired at an earlier age that 60, and ought not to be disqualified from benefit under the Bill.
The Financial Secretary will, no doubt, shortly tell me that if the prison officer or the policeman or the local government officer or the teacher is physically incapacitated, then he will be entitled to benefit under the Bill. But we ought not to make it a condition of granting pensions which have their purchasing power reduced by a rise in the cost of living that a man has to be in a state of complete mental or physical disability. The whole approach to the Bill is wrong. The qualifications here are indefensible, and my Amendment seeks to delete them from the Bill, so that the only question shall be whether a man conforms to the other conditions of the Bill.

Sir G. Jeffreys: These tests of means or otherwise are, as a general rule, completely foreign to the pensions of the Services. The basic rates of retired pay, the original rates at which the officer or


other rank retires, have never been conditioned by tests at any time whatever, except in the case of peacetime pensions granted to widows of officers already retired. If a retired officer dies, and the widow applies for a pension, her means are rightly taken into consideration, but, on the other hand, the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, impose means tests as far as increases in pension are concerned, and no doubt they are used as a precedent in this particular case, but it is a somewhat unfortunate precedent. All these tests will cost money and will certainly cost a great deal in time, in forms, and in inquiries. In order to obtain all the particulars, to ascertain that the pensioner is not under 60, is suffering from Mental or physical infirmity or disability, that a widow is not under 40 or has dependants or is disabled—and there is the question of the definition of disablement—there will have to be forms comparable to those which are now, I do not hesitate to say, greatly puzzling a great many employees and a good many of their employers under the new Payas-You-Earn Income Tax scheme. These forms, in the case of pensioners, will be equally puzzling to pensioners and will cause an enormous amount of trouble to the officials of the Treasury, both at headquarters and in the country.
That seems to be the certain result, and I wonder whether it will be worth the time, the cost, the undoubted annoyance, and the very frequent hardships that it will certainly cause. It is beside the question that these ceilings which we have passed are too low having regard to the cost of living and the standard of living of a very large number of smaller pensioners in the neighbourhood of £200 or £300. I think they might well be higher. Surely, any savings and the income of a wife ought not to be reckoned in the case of the smaller pensioners. It penalises the thrifty, especially the old officers, most of whom come into the lower category as having been promoted from the ranks or from the lower deck. In the case of teachers, some of whom have very low standards of pension, or of policemen, especially those who retired before 1919—those who retired before 1919 would certainly be over 60 and would not be disqualified in that way—their pensions are very low, and in many cases a sergeant of police, retired before 1919, receives a much lower rate of pension than

a police constable who has retired since that date.
I think it is hard to split hairs over their income and their savings, and it seems to me to be a discouragement and a penalisation of the thrifty if we take their small means into consideration. Many bachelors, or widowers living alone, are really worse off; not in terms of money, but really worse off than where there is a wife to help, to provide companionship, to keep the house going, and to make the best of even the exiguous food rations which can be obtained to-day. I believe the case of a lone man, or if it comes to that, a lone woman living alone in these days on a small income is very hard indeed, and far from penalising a man because he has not a wife or any dependant living with him and has to live alone, it ought to be a case for making him an allowance.
I very well know that the Treasury cannot be expected to be generous, but surely it might be a little less ungenerous in dealing with these matters and not, whilst seeming to give with one hand, take away with the other. It is a characteristic attitude, not only now but at all times, of the Treasury. Without going into details, which would be out of Order, it used to be a constant complaint in the Services that whatever you might get in the way of allowances, it was always qualified by something which in many cases prevented you from drawing them. I do think that in a matter of this kind—it would not cost much money—the Treasury might be a little more generous to these low-paid pensioners. With regard to the cases of hardship, with which the Chancellor has always professed to deal first and foremost in these matters, I think there are grave hardships for many of these lower pensioners, and those hardships are only qualified by the fact that some times they have a little money saved of their own, or possibly their wives have a little money, which makes it easier for them to maintain something like a standard of living to which they might reasonably expect to conform, but in these very difficult and very hard days I hope that some consideration will be given to this Amendment.

Mr. Molson: I would like to say one word in support of the Treasury attitude upon these matters. We are constantly hearing hon. Members complaining that


the Treasury is unduly niggardly. There was a time when this House constituted itself the protector of the pockets of the taxpayers, and it is during the last 50 or 60 years that the attitude of this House has completely changed. If it were not for the Treasury, which does endeavour to look after the interests of the taxpayers of the country, I think that the heavy burden of taxation which exists at present would be even heavier than it is.
With regard to the merits of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), I cannot help thinking that much of the argument which he put forward would have been more appropriate in dealing with the special classes of pensioners who are entitled to the benefits contained in Clause 2. It was pointed out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Second Reading, that anyone eligible under both schemes would be treated under whichever was the more favourable. It follows, therefore, that in the case of those pensioners who have sustained reductions in their pensions owing to the decline in the cost of living in the years immediately after the last war, they will be able to avail themselves of the special provisions of Clause 2. It appears to me, therefore, that in moving the Amendment the hon. Member for Rugby should, in logic, have addressed himself to the case of those pensioners who have had the claim put forward on their behalf that they should be granted an increase in pension on the ground of hardship. Now, if the increase, which the State is not under any contractual obligation to give to them, is to be granted for the purpose of relieving hardship, then it seems to me to be absolutely essential that there should be proof that the hardship exists. For those reasons I hope that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take the view that this is an absolutely essential feature of the Bill, to which the House agreed upon the Second Reading.

Mr. Assheton: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) both suggested that the Chancellor ought to be rather more generous. Of course it is not for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be generous, though it is certainly not for

the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be ungenerous.

Sir G. Jeffreys: What I said was "less ungenerous." I did not say "more generous."

Mr. Assheton: I heard my hon. and gallant Friend rightly, I think, and I want to point out that it is not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to exercise his generosity at the expense of other people. When dealing with other people's money one has to be particularly careful. We should always think of that. The object of the Amendment is to leave out all the conditions with regard to age, infirmity, and so on, under the hardship scheme. Of course the conditions which are imposed under these various sub-sections, to which my hon. Friend takes exception, are based on Sections which appeared in the earlier Pensions Increase Acts, but I may say that they are more liberal, in certain respects at any rate, than those previous Acts. However, the various conditions are, without any doubt, an indispensable part of the hardship scheme of an emergency character. I find it difficult to see—and I think the Committee will agree with me—why, under present conditions, a hardship increase should be granted to a pensioner who is under 60 years of age, without a dependant, and in good health. Such pensioners ought, in the view of the Government, and are in fact, contributing to the war effort and there is every opportunity for their employment, and we are extremely grateful to them for all they are doing. When the case for a scheme of some kind was put forward, we were urged by various hon. Members to remember the hardships under which certain sections of pensioners were suffering. My hon. Friend came to see me at the Treasury on a deputation and that was the point he made, a point which struck home and had its effect.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I do not want to interrupt, but if the Financial Secretary is making the point that when I went to see him with other hon. Members, I stressed the fact that there was hardship amongst the pensioners, that is right. If, however, he is suggesting that I based the case of that deputation only on the ground of hardship, he is wrong. I based my case then, as I base it now, on this plain circumstance, that when the


cost of living was coming down, the House and the Government insisted on automatic reductions in pension. I say that that being so, we have no moral right to do anything other than increase pensions when the cost of living is going up, and that it is wrong and immoral to introduce all the qualifications that this Bill imports. For them the only justification which can be found is that they are someing like what appear in the Pensions Increase Act, 1920. The big distinction I see is that the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, was not preceded by heavy reductions in the size of pensions on cost of living grounds. But this Bill is preceded by heavy reduction of pensions on cost of living grounds, which makes 'the case quite different.

Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend knows quite well that I never deliberately misinterpret him. I was pointing out to the Committee that the argument he brought forward when he came to the Treasury, which impressed me, was the one of hardship.

Mr. Brown: That was the weakest of the lot.

Mr. Assheton: I am quite aware that the hon. Member put forward a great many other arguments; he generally has a great many strings to his bow, and there are few people as capable of finding an argument to suit the occasion as my hon. Friend. But the hardship ground impressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is the hardship ground which is the basis of this Bill. Some play was made by my hon. Friend with the case of ex-policemen, prison warders, and others who normally retire at some earlier age than 60. It may well be that it is appropriate for those classes of persons to retire from their occupation earlier than 60, but that is no reason at all why, after retirement, they should not obtain lighter employment in other occupations which are open to them and, in fact, they generally do. We all of us know that ex-policemen have a great advantage in obtaining suitable positions when, they are retired, and it would be quite wrong to introduce into a hardship scheme—

Mr. Gallacher: With no means test?

Mr. Assheton: —into a hardship scheme a proposal which was to give to, let us say, an ex-policeman who is a pensioner

who is now earning a handsome income, the benefits of this hardship scheme. I am afraid that there is nothing further I can add on this point, and I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Gallacher: I do not like the statement made at the commencement of the Financial Secretary's speech that the Chancellor cannot afford to be generous. I have known the Chancellor to be very generous when it has been a case of subsidies for the shipping industry, or subsidies for agriculture, or subsidies for beet.

Mr. W. J. Brown: On cost.

Mr. Galladier: All sorts of things.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the hon. Gentleman is getting a little wide. We are not interested in any way in subsidies on this Clause.

Mr. Gallaeher: It is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while conserving the finances of the taxpayers as much as possible—although I am quite certain hon. Members on the other side might not be interested in taxpayers if subsidies in some other directions were being discussed—to be generous in his method of applying whatever benefits he is applying. But the Chancellor of this country operates according to the law of parsimony when dealing with ordinary working-class people, and so we get, as in this Bill, every kind of restriction and limitation that causes grievances and reductions that are not necessary at all. It would be far better if the Minister, on behalf of the Chancellor, would face up to the situation and even allow some of them a little more than he might think they are entitled to in order to ensure that all the others are getting what they are actually entitled to get.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, to 'upon,' in page 2, line 1, stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Amendments made:

In page 2, line 1, leave out from "woman," to end of Sub-section, and insert "who has at least one dependant."

In line 9, leave out from "woman," to "or," in line 10, and insert "who has at least one dependant."

In line 17, leave out from beginning to "or," in line 18, and insert "she has at least one dependant."

In line to, at the end, insert:
(5) For the purposes of this Section and of the Second Schedule to this Act the expression 'dependant' means, in relation to any pensioner, any person other than the pensioner with respect to whom the pension authority are satisfied that he is wholly or mainly supported by the pensioner and that his total income from any other source does not exceed fifty-two pounds a year, being either—

(a) a person who has not attained the age of sixteen years, or who, if he has attained that age, is receiving full-time instruction at any educational establishment or is undergoing training for any trade, profession, or vocation; or—
(b) the father, mother, brother, sister, child, uncle or aunt of the pensioner, or of the husband or wife of the pensioner, or of the deceased husband or wife of the pensioner; or
(c) the child of any such person as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph; or
(d) the stepfather or stepmother of the pensioner;
and in this Sub-section the expression 'child' includes, in relation to any person, a step-child, an illegitimate child and a child adopted by him in pursuance of an adoption order made under the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, the Adoption of Children (Scotland) Act, 1930, or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, or adopted by him in accordance with the law of the place where he was domiciled at the time of the adoption.
In calculating, for the purposes of this. Subsection, the income of any such person as is mentioned in paragraph (a) thereof, no account shall be taken of any income accruing to that person as the holder of a scholarship or other educational endowment."—[Mr. Assheton.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence: I do not propose to delay the Committee on this Clause. I want to refer to a point which was raised on the Second Reading, namely, the exclusion of certain bodies from the benefits of this Measure. These bodies are closely analogous to other bodies which are included. For instance, the Financial Secretary said on the Second Reading Debate that the Metropolitan Water Board come within the provisions of the Bill and that the Port of London Authority and the London Passenger Transport Board do not. I think the right hon. Gentleman should say a few words as to why that division has been made. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite fixed in his intention to exclude these bodies I would like to ask him whether he can take genuine steps to bring the matter to the attention of those in authority in those

bodies with a view to seeing whether they can bring their practice into line with the proposals which the Government are intending for themselves and for local authorities with regard to pensioners and other employees who are, in effect, in a similar position.

Mr. Burden: I want to reinforce the plea made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). It is true that this Bill will apply to a limited number of persons who have served with the London Passenger Transport Board, namely, that section transferred to the Board through the passing of the London Passenger Transport Act. They will be covered by reference. But, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned, there are quite a number of statutory funds where the amounts of superannuation cannot be increased except by the sanction of this House, and we urge the Chancellor to make some provision for the people connected with such funds. The Chancellor has promised to deal with railway superannuated staffs and I suggest that something along the same lines might be considered with respect to the superannuated staffs of public utility authorities. Earlier, I called attention to the position of retired local government officers whose pensions were subject to fluctuations in a similar way to those retired from the Civil Service until their pensions were consolidated in 1935. This Bill does not provide for these retired servants of a local authority. I agree that the number may be limited, but there should be equality of treatment, and I ask the Chancellor to consider an Amendment at a later stage which would put right the position of retired local government servants, whose pensions have been subjected to variation under the cost-of-living index.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I warmly support the plea which has been made from these benches, that those categories of pensioners with whom we cannot deal under the Bill, because the scope of the Measure is restricted, should receive the beneficial attention of the Financial Secretary—if those words are not a contradiction in terms—and that he should do whatever he can with statutory bodies like the P.L.A., to see that something like this is extended to their staffs. There is another category in respect of whom I have made the same plea before, and with whom we


cannot deal under this Bill, namely, retired Colonial and Indian civil servants.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): They are right outside this Bill. The hon. Member is getting very wide.

Mr. Brown: I quite appreciate that, Mr. Williams. I am not endeavouring to bring them in; I am merely suggesting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might bring this matter to the notice of the Colonial Governments and suggest that they take similar action. I know they are not strictly under the Bill, but they come under the general responsibility of this House. and this seems to be an appropriate way of dealing with the matter.

Mr. Assheton: I cannot give any undertaking with regard to this matter, because the Bill deals with State pensioners and with local government servants, and anything beyond that is quite outside its scope. I daresay, however, that other bodies will take note of what has been said by hon. Members and I will report to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. PethickLawrence) has said. On the point raised by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) there are difficulties about these local government pensions. I understand it is true that there were certain local government pensions which were subjected to fluctuations in accordance with the cost of living, but they were not, under the general system and applied only to certain pensioners. Even where there was fluctuation consolidation took place at all sorts of different times and on all sorts of different bases. They were quite different bases from those applicable to the Civil Service, and that means that no single remedy would meet the situation for local government pensioners. There is such an infinite variety of cases. The Government are. not prepared to impose upon local authorities an obligation beyond that of the hardship scheme in Clause 1 We have gone some distance in dealing with the local authorities in imposing upon them obligations which already stand in the Clause which, I hope, the Committee will now accept.

Sir Robert Tasker: Can we be told why one authority is in and

another is out? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked why the Metropolitan Water Board was in and the Port of London authority was out.

Mr. Assheton: The answer is quite clear. I thought I made it clear in my Second Reading speech, but perhaps I did not. The Metropolitan Water Board is technically a local authority and comes within the terms of the Bill.

Question, "shat the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," and agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Special provisions as to increase of pensions payable under the Superannuation Acts.)

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "two", and to insert "four."
The effect of this Amendment and the following one is to make a substantial improvement in the rates of increase contemplated for certain civil servants under the special scheme embodied in this Clause. The improvement in question will also be reflected in the corresponding increases to be granted to officers on retired pay. Under the Bill as it was originally drafted the rates of increase were: to per cent. up to £200; 7½ per cent. between £200 and £1,00 and 5 per cent. between £400 and £600. Under this Amendment these rates of increase are altered as follows: Not exceeding £400, 10 per cent.; between£400 and £600, per cent., and over £600 and up to £645, such increase as is required to bring the pensions up to that amount. I hope the Committee appreciate that my right hon. Friend has gone a very long way to meet the claims which were put forward on the Second Reading and that they will be satisfied with what has been done in this regard.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to ask your guidance, Mr. Williams, on a point of Order. I notice that you have passed over the Amendment which stands in my name, and the name of other hon. Members, which proposed to delete 10 per cent., 7½ per cent. and 5 per cent from Clause 2 (1) and to substitute a flat rate sum of £50. I would like to know whether you propose to call that Amendment after we have disposed of the one now before the Committee, or what other steps you propose to take to enable the Committee


to debate what I regard as the general inadequacy of the increases proposed to be given under Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not selected the hon. Member's Amendment, but I propose to call later an Amendment in his name, which he has handed in as a manuscript Amendment, to page 2, line 35, to omit "ten," and to insert "thirty." That would mean that the hon. Member's point can then be discussed.

Captain Cobb: I would like to express my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made in answer to the representations which have been made to him from many sources. My own feeling is that this concession will go a very long way towards removing the grievances which were genuinely felt by a great number of pensioners who thought, rightly or wrongly— I understand wrongly—that their contract had been broken when pensions were stabilised in 1935 at a figure of 9½ per cent. below the 1919 figure. The effect of those concessions which my right hon. Friend has made will mean that pensioners receiving up to £400 a year will, in fact, be a half per cent. better off, whereas those receiving from £400 to£600 a year will only be 2 per cent. worse off than they were. Roughly speaking, that means that there will be general benefits granted to everyone from the rank of battalion commander downward, that is to say the hardest cases of all will receive very genuine benefits from the concession. I feel that, in view of the reasonable and generous spirit in which the Chancellor has met many of us who have made representations on this subject, he deserves to have this tribute paid to him.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out "ten", and to insert "thirty".
The object of the Amendment is to alter the percentage increases given in the first Sub-section of this Clause: Those increases now are to per cent. up to £400, and 7½ per cent. from £400 to something just over £600. If we are to consider the adequacy of these proposed increases, we have to set them against the actual increase in the cost of living, which gave rise to this problem in the first place. The Ministry of Labour index figure indicates

that there has been a rise, between 1935 and to-day, of something like one-third in the cost of living. It has gone up from approximately 150 to approximately 200 during those years. But it is the common experience of eyery man and woman in Britain that the relationship between the index figure of the Ministry of Labour and the actual cost of living is very dim and distant. The index figure was compiled on the basis of budgets collected in 1904. Even if there had been no great wars in the meantime, there would almost certainly have been, in a period of 40 years, a very considerable alteration in the spending habits of our people. And the odds are that the index figure by now would have become quite inapplicable to actual present-day budgets on which our people spend their income. But, on top of that alteration in the distribution and the scale of expenditure, we have had the effect of two wars, and to-day the real rise in the cost of living has no relation whatever to the index figure.
I wish the Government would themselves give us a real estimate of the rise in the cost of living, as distinct from this quite inapplicable Ministry of Labour index figure. They do not do so, but there are other people who do. There is the Oxford Institute of Statistics, which estimates that the real rise in the cost of living is not the 30 per cent. of the Ministry of Labour but nearer 50 per cent. There is the Gazette published by a department of the Labour Party, which again puts the figure in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. My friend Lord Beaverbrook, who is pretty well informed on these matters, expresses the view that the real increase in the cost of living is nearer too per cent., and certainly that is our experience in laying out our incomes to-day. In those circumstances. it seems to me that to offer figures of to and 732 per cent. as compensation for a rise in the cost of living of 50 per cent. is not merely inadequate. It is grotesquely inadequate.
The Financial Secretary is a little uneasy about that himself because, in an earlier stage in our discussions on the Bill, he tried to minimise the effect of the increase in the cost of living by saying that in the case of the Civil Service consolidation took place in 1935 at a figure ten points higher than the actual cost of living, and that, therefore, in the years between 1935 and 1939, although the cost


of living went up, the civil servant was not damnified thereby. He only became damnified by reference to the increase that took place between the beginning of the war and now. There are two answers to that point which ought to figure in the records. The first is that this Bill does not only deal with civil servants, but with a wide variety of different types. And, even if the argument as applied to the Civil Service were sound, it does not apply to the other categories covered by the Bill. The second answer is that it does not apply to the Civil Service.
I think the Financial Secretary took a somewhat shameful advantage of the lack of knowledge in the House of various aspects of Civil Service administration in using the argument that he used. I want the Committee to be informed of what actually took place. In 1929 there was appointed a Royal Commission on the Civil Service, which recommended some years later—Royal Commissions are leisurely and stately things which do not proceed with undue precipitation—that we should get rid of the old system, and that the bonus should be consolidated with the' basic pay to make an inclusive figure of remuneration. They said they were satisfied that, in the lower areas of the service, there was very widespread and serious underpayment, and, as a means of minimising that underpayment, they proposed that consolidation of bonus and basic pay should take place, not on the actual cost of living figure at that time, which was 145, but on a higher figure of 155, the idea being to use this particular method to put right to a certain extent the chronic underpayment in the rate of the basic pay itself. What the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have done is to take something which the Royal Commission recommended as a means of remedying underpayment, and to use that as a set-off against subsequent increases in the cost of living.
The only analogy that I can find for that is the ancient and honourable game much practised at racecourse meetings, of trying to find the pea. This particular pea is translated from the thimble of basic pay to the thimble of the cost of living, according as the Chancellor's mood of reckless gambling 'affects him from time to time. The one argument we have had first of all does not apply to any of the categories covered by the Bill and, secondly, is a

wrong argument to be used even in the case of the Civil Service. So we are still left with the proposal to give increases of between 7½ and 10 per cent. in respect of a rise in the cost of living of at least 50 per cent. since 1935. Even as an act of uncovenanted benefit that is a singularly ungenerous contribution to make. But this matter ought never to have been treated as a matter of "grace and favour," or uncovenanted benefit, I apologise for repeating what I have said three time to-day—

The Deputy-Chairman: Then there is no need to say it again.

Mr. Brown: I mentioned it previously on another Clause, but it has a special application now. It is not as if we were dealing with the situation as it existed in 1920. At that time pensions had not been disturbed for many years. Then there comes a rise in the cost of living and the Government, as an act of grace and favour, gives certain increases by way of partial compensation. But the situation that we are dealing with to-day is one in which for 13 years, from 1922 to 1935, pensions in the public service were reduced automatically year after year as the cost of living fell. There was no argument about whether it caused hardship, about a means test, about dependants or about age. There was an automatic mathematical reduction year by year from 1922 to 1935. From 1935 to 1944 the cost of living has gone up. When we reduced pensions in the public service, we did it in the first year when the cost of living began to fall. The cost of living reached its apex after the last war in September, 1920, and by the end of 1921 this House decided that pensions should begin to come down. It has taken us nine years to get even a discussion of the question of increasing pensions. Every Member of the House of Commons ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself for having allowed nine years to elapse before proposing any increase, after having imposed reductions in the first year when the cost of living began to fall after the last war. That is a shameful and sorry record. To propose at the end of nine years a 7½ per cent. increase as compensation for a rise in the cost of living of 50, is an insult.

Mr. Muff (Kingston-upon-Hull, East): It is lousy.

Mr. Brown: I regard that as a triumph of understatement. If the Chancellor were concerned with justice, as he ought to be in this Clause, he should make provision for back pay from 1935.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment deals with a percentage increase, and we cannot deal with the question of back pay.

Mr. Brown: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but am I not entitled to point out, as one of my arguments for a substantial increase in these percentages, that nine years have elapsed during which the pensioners have suffered without a penny of compensation?

The Deputy-Chairman: As an illustration, but the hon. Member cannot develop it too far.

Mr. Brown: I will not develop it further. I trust that the Committee seizes the point. I am proposing that the 10 per cent. should be increased to 30, which is much less than the full rise in the cost of living. I am also proposing that we should increase the 7½ per cent. to 15. That, again, is infinitely less than the rise in the cost of living. The only thing I can find to say in favour of my own proposal is that it is less offensive and less mean and ungenerous than the proposal in the Bill. I propose to divide the Committee on this issue. The Committee have no conception of the cynical bitterness which is felt throughout the whole public service at the way in which the Treasury has handled this matter. We ought to takes a clear decision here, because I would again remind the Committee that it was not only the Government who said in 1921–22 that all pensions should come down, it was this House, and I submit that the least the Committee can do is now to give some measure of compensation to pensioners which is utterly ludicrous in comparison with the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said. Part of it was a repetition of what he has already said in earlier discussions to-day, and the other part, as far as I could see, was largely a repetition of what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill. I do not propose to follow him into a discussion of whether the index figure of the cost of living is correct

or not. When he talks of the cynical bitterness which he says is felt, and about a sense of justice, it is advisable to take more matters into account than solely the position of the people now in receipt of pensions. We have, as the Chancellor has said, to consider our duty towards the lower orders of taxpayers, who will have to bear some part of the 'burden of such increases as there may be. I have no doubt that if an undue burden is cast upon their shoulders through having to pay increased pensions to one section of the community only, there will not be an absence of a feeling of cynical bitterness on their part. I have been concerned about the position of the retired Service men, and I welcome the Chancellor's decision to meet their real sense of grievance by restoring to a large degree what they lost in 1934. I think that that goes far enough to meet the case of the great majority of those pensioners.

Mr. R. Morgan: I support the Amendment, because I think the case for an extra remuneration to these pensioners has been fully demonstrated on both sides of the Committee. If the State is to regard itself as a model employer, the appeal of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will not fall on deaf ears. Whatever the hon. Member said about the Civil Service applies with double force to the teaching profession. While members of the profession have received extra remuneration to meet the increase in the cost of living, the superannuated teachers have received nothing. They have to bear the extra cost of living, plus Income Tax demands. I hope that the Committee will be prepared to act in a generous way. It may not be possible, as the hon. Member for Rugby suggested, to date back this increase, but let us at any rate make a real and effective improvement in the, position of pensioners. I could keep the Committee a long time giving details of the pensions received by different classes of superannuated teachers, who find it difficult to meet even the demands of their daily existence, but the Committee must know of these cases. The percentages proposed in the Clause are not worthy of Parliament, but I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby will not take his Amendment to a Divisibn. I have an unfortunate recollection of what happened a few days ago, when a Division on a private matter like this was taken as


a major issue, and I should be afraid to go into the Lobby for this Amendment because it might be misunderstood. If, however, the Chancellor gives us an assurance that it will not be misunderstood, I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Rugby.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I regret that on this occasion I am unable to go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). I agree with him that 7½ per cent. increase is too little, and I think he agrees with me that the ceiling ought not to be there at all but that the proper course is to give back what has been taken away. What I and others who think like me have been urging all along is that the equivalent of what has been taken away on account of the fall in the cost of living ought to be given back. Ten per cent. gives back that equivalent, but 7½ per cent. emphatically does not. For that reason I regret that I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby in his advocacy of the considerable increase, whether deserved or not, to 30 per cent. and 15 per cent. If I did so, it would make my previous actions in this matter appear inconsistent. I sympathise with him in trying to get all he can for pensioners. I want to get all I can, but there must he some limit, and I cannot help thinking that he has gone a little too far beyond that limit. If he had put the increase a little lower I should have been glad to support him.

Mr. Assheton: The Committee will not expect me to accept the Amendment. There are two parts of this Bill. There is Clause r, the hardship part, and there is Clause 2, which deals with special categories to which our attention was directed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). The proposal which the hon. Member for Rugby brings forward is related entirely to Clause 2. It does not deal with Clause 1, which we have disposed of.

Division No. 16.
AYES.



Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beech, Major F. W.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beechman, N. A.
Brooke, H. (Lewisham)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Benson, G.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (S'ch Univ.)
Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Apsley, Lady
Bevin, Rt. Hon. E. (Wandsworth, C.)
Burden, T. W.


Assheton, Rt. Han. R.
Blair, Sir R.
Cadogan, Major Sir E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. G. R.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)


Barnes, A. J.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Bower, Norman (Harrow)
Cary, R. A.

Mr. W. J. Brown: We may have disposed of Clause 1, but we have not disposed of the Second Schedule. Clause 1 says that increases shall be given on hardship grounds as provided by the terms of the Second Schedule, which we have not reached. If the Financial Secretary is entertaining the happy illusion that there are to be no Amendments to that Schedule, I am sorry to disappoint him.

Mr. Assheton: I was not entertaining that illusion, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has a string of Amendments to the Second Schedule. The point I am making is that the proposal of the hon. Member for Rugby is that in the case of those Civil Service and ex-officer pensioners with which we are dealing under a special Clause, there shall be an increase of 30 per cent. instead of 10. When my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield put forward his case on the Second Reading, he made it clear that he was asking for 9½ per cent., which was the amount of deduction suffered by these pensioners. A similar, though rather more complicated position exists with regard to civil servants. It is clear that if we were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby we should be giving to the friends of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield three times as much as they are asking for.

Mr. Brown: In terms of money, but not in purchasing power.

. Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has forgotten that only 20 per cent, of ex-officer pensions and a varying but small percentage of Civil Service pensions were subject to fluctuation. It is as clear as daylight that if we increase the pensions now by 30 per cent., we will not only be making up for what they lost through stabilisation, but giving a great deal in addition. I have therefore, no difficulty in asking the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 3.

Chailen, Flight-Lieut. C.
James, Admiral Sir W. (Ports'th, N.)
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Pym, L. R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Rankin, Sir R.


Coob, Captain E. C.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)


Colegate, W. A.
John, W.
Ritson, J.


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Johnston, Rt. Hn. T. (St'l'g&amp;C'km'n)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T.R.A. M.(N'flk, N.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Rowlands, G.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Comdr. Hn. L. W.
Salt, E. W.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keir, Mrs. Cazalet
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Savory, Professor D. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's.)
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Daggar, G.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.
Scott, Donald (Wansbeek)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Selley, Sir H. R.


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Shephard, S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leach, W.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Denville, Alfred
Levy, T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Debbie, W.
Lewis, O.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Donner, Squadron-Loader P. W.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. McN.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Ladywood)
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Longhurst, Captain H. C.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.
Storey, S.


Dunn, E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon, J. (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Eccles, D. M.
McCorquodale, Malcolm S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Suirdale, Viscount


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mack, J. D.
Sutcliffe, H.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Maitland, Sir A.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Furness, S. N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col A.
Thomas, I. (Keighley)


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Mathers, G.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Gates, Major E. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'broke)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Touche, G. C.


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wakefield, W. W.


Gledhill, G.
Molson, A. H. E.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Goldie, N. B.
Montague, F.
Ward, Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Grant-Ferris, Wing-Comdr. R.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh, Cen.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Richmond)


Gretton, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mort, D. L.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Groves, T. E.
Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Weston, W. Garfield


Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Guy, W. H.
Nicholson, Captain G. (Farnham)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Nield, Major B. E.
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Nunn, W.
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Helmore, Air Commodore W.
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Owen, Major Sir G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Pearson, A.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Womersley, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Petherick, M.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Wright, Mrs. Beatrice F. (Bodmin)


Hopkinson, A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
York, Major C


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Pilkington, Captain R. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton



Hurd, Sir P. A.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Price, M. P.
Captain McEwen and




Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Kendall, W. D.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey, W.)

Mr. Reakes and Mr. W. J. Brown.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 36, leave out paragraph (b).—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Sir G. Jeffreys: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "six", and to insert "twelve."
I understand that this Amendment and the next which stands in my name, and which proposes to insert, in line 2, in place of "by five per cent.":

and where the rate thereof was reduced on account of the fall in the index figure of the cost of living between the years nineteen hundred and twenty-four and nineteen hundred and thirty-four, it shall be increased by not less than the amount of any such reduction
can be discussed together. The first Amendment proposes to increase the ceiling from £600 to £1,200, and the second to restore to those who had their pensions reduced between 1924 and 1934 that which was taken away from them. They


apply equally to retired officers and to civil servants, for, in each case, the pensions were reduced, although the methods of reduction were not identical.
The pensions were reduced on account of the fall in the cost of living, but now that cost of living has risen and is approximately equivalent, on paper, to that of 1919. Actually, working-class figures such as are used in calculating the cost-of-living index figure are not wholly appropriate to these ex-officers and ex-civil servants, whose cost of living has definitely risen. Many factors are not taken into account in the calculation of the nowadays rather artificial figure of the cost of living. Among them are education, insurance and medical fees, as well as the general standing of living of those who have been officers or civil servants of a certain grade.
I will not argue the question of whether or not there is an obligation on the Government to raise the rates. I must accept the Chancellor's judgment in the matter—he is judge and jury in this case—but though the Government may be carrying out the letter of the 1919 Warrant, that is as far as officers of the Services are concerned, I submit they are certainly not carrying out the spirit of it. And it is a fact, as has already been mentioned in this Debate, that there is deep resentment among those whose pensions were cut on account of a fall in the cost of living at receiving no corresponding increase on account of the rise in the cost of living.
I venture to ask whether it is worth the while of the Government to allow this sense of grievance to continue unremedied and unallayed. There is a sense of grievance. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises it, although he does not think, and possibly he is quite right, that it is reasonable that there should be, right throughout those of His Majesty's Services for which I can personally vouch, wrongly or otherwise, that sense of grievance. I believe the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) will say that there is a similar feeling of grievance among the civil servants who are pensioned. I would ask whether it is worth while for the Government, for a comparatively small sum to allow that sense of grievance to remain completely unallayed? As ceilings are the fashions nowadays I have put the ceiling at £1,200. I might have put it higher. There are

some higher pensions, only a few I admit, which were cut. Even £1,200, after the deduction of £600 Income Tax, is not a very high pension in these days, considering the present-day cost of living and what are reasonable standards of living for ex-senior officers and officials. Anyhow these pensions were reduced on account of a fall in the cost of living. Surely, it is only reasonable that they should be correspondingly increased.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will have nothing whatever to do with the cost-of-living fluctuations, and he has spoken somewhat darkly of inflation. That might be a reasonable attitude if the rate had never been reduced, but the rates were reduced over a number of years and had only risen very slightly when stabilisation was decided upon. If it had been decided to stabilise at par that might have been quite reasonable — another matter altogether. But to cut pensions on account of a fall in the cost of living and stabilise without restoring the full amount of those cuts was very much less than fair and just, in my respectful submission. It sometimes seems as though the Treasury aim to give only what they must give under pressure and no more, I am well aware that they cannot be expected to be generous, that is not their business, but they might be absolutely fair and just.
The cost of restoring the amount of the cuts to all officers of the Services from whom they were taken was estimated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to be £500,000 a year now, and £850,000 after the war. That £500,000 annually included many of those who under this Bill will get restoration in full or to some extent, so that so far as officers are concerned the extra cost over and above what is proposed in this Bill is very much less than £500,000. I hope that the Chancellor will soften his heart and realise that what was taken away, no more and no less, ought to be restored. It is not as if we were living at a cheap time, or as though the cost of living had fallen for all these officers and officials who are affected. I suggest that it would be not unreasonable, and certainly would not cost a large sum of money, as sums of money go in these days, to restore in full to every officer who lost money in the cuts made between 1924 and 1934, the exact equivalent of what he lost.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: It does not seem to me that any argument in principle is required to justify this Amendment. The principle is accepted when you fix a limit of£600, or indeed any limit up to what the Government think that by and large it is time they gave some increase to pensioners on account of changes that have taken place since the original figures were fixed. There is no need to argue that there is a case for change. The Government admit that by bringing in the Bill. The only question is for whom the change is to be made. I see no particular magic in £1,200, but there is a very strong case for £1,000, which I ventured to bring to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading, which is, that that is the figure up to which the Treasury is itself allowing a war bonus to be paid. They have chosen that figure as an appropriate one up to which they will pay civil servants a war bonus. If that is so why should the ex-civil servant, and of course, when the Royal Warrant and other things come up to be considered in the case of military categories, officers and so on, be discriminated against? If there is a case for civil servants earning up to £1,000 receiving bonus there seems to me a case for the ex-civil servant receiving pension up to that amount being given an increase. Since I do not wish to move an Amendment to an Amendment, I suggest £1,000, but I am supporting my hon. and gallant Friend in his Amendment.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this Amendment was unable to go with me on the Amendment which I moved just before we reached this one. That shall not prevent me from remaining true to the alliance, and supporting his Amendment on this subject as heartily as I possibly can. My attitude to this Amendment derives from precisely the same position in principle as does my attitude on all the other Amendments to this Bill. The truth is that on this Amendment, as on every other, we are approaching the matter from one angle of principle, and the Chancellor is approaching it from another, and that fundamental difference in principle reflects itself in the Debate on every single Clause and every single Amendment as we reach it. I much regret that advantage was not taken of the last Amendment to make the Government understand where the Committee stands in principle on this mattes. It was

to me a sorry and tragic thing, but if I were representing the Government on that Front Bench I should notice much more the mass abstentions from the Division Lobby on this side of the House than I would the small figure of three, the number of those who came into the Lobby with me. I would not be at all happy, if I were the Chancellor, about that last vote.
The Division on each Amendment reflects the division in principle. Is not that division in principle that we say that the Government must be logical? If they say that pensions must come down when the cost of living falls, they must equally say that pensions must go up when the cost of living rises. If they say there is to be no qualification about the reduction they must say equally that there must be no qualification about the increases. What the Government cannot do with any regard to logic and consistency is to say, "We will reduce pensions on a mathematical basis when the cost of living goes down, but when the cost of living goes up all we will give you is a handful of charity as an act of grace." When the pensions were reduced there was no question then of exempting pensions above or below a certain limit. All pensions were brought down. I see no earthly reason why we should put a limit of £600 to our charity when we put no limit to our lack of charity when the cost of living was falling. It is logical that all pensions should be increased in the same way as they were reduced when the cost of living came down. There is not a single member of my organisation who would derive any benefit from the change from £600 to £1,200 but that is not the point. Here there is the same issue in principle as there has been on every Clause of this Bill up to now. If my hon. and gallant Friend chooses to divide the Committee on this Amendment, as I hope he will if he does not get satisfaction, I shall be in the Lobby with him even though he was not in the Lobby with me on the last occasion.

Sir J. Anderson: I should like to dispose first of the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). He put a simple point—he, always tries to be logical. He says, "If the Government say that pensions must come down when the cost of living goes down they ought to say that pensions should go up when the cost of living does up." I do not join issue with him on that. I say


at once that the Government say nothing of the kind. I say that the position is that a former Government, after the last war, influenced by the financial policy followed for reasons then thought perfectly sound, adopted the principle of the sliding scale, of underwriting sterling and letting expenses go up with the cost of living and bringing them down when the cost of living came down. We have followed an entirely different course. I am not prepared to accept the principle as a matter of policy that we should in regard to any item of our expenditure adopt an arithmetical formula and allow our charges to vary up and down with changes in the cost of living. This is not the time or the opportunity, there will be other occasions more appropriate, for discussing that vital matter of principle in detail. I refer to it now merely for the purpose of disposing of that argument of my hon. Friend.
The position is that a former Government, after the last war, applied this principle of the sliding scale, in 1919, to a limited extent to certain classes of pensions, and in the application of that principle certain adjustments were made. When the cost of living went down the pensions in question went down. It is not quite accurate to say, as the hon. Member said in an earlier intervention, that there was no floor, because there was a floor. The pensions were stabilised on a cost-of-living basis of 155, which did not in fact represent the lowest point to which the cost of living had gone and that 155 remained the basis up to the outbreak of the present war. No pensioner suffered through that basis having been adopted for purposes of stabilisation. I only mention this incidentally. It is the fact that for stabilisation purposes 155 was taken as the figure and that did not represent the lowest point to which the cost of living and pensions had been reduced, nor was it the actual level of the cost of living at the moment stabilisation took place.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The consolidation of 155 as against the cost of living —

It being the hour appointed for the consideration of Opposed Private Business and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward (Kingston-upon-Hull, North-West): I beg to support the Second Reading of the Kingston upon Hull Corporation (Development, etc.) Bill which has just been moved by the Chairman of Ways and Means. A very considerable amount of opposition has developed towards this Bill and, as a Motion for the rejection of this Bill is down on the Paper to-day, perhaps a few words as to the position in which the City of Hull finds itself to-day may not be altogether out of place.
Hull, as a great many people are aware, is the primary port on the North-East coast of England. In fact, it is more. Up to the war it was the third largest port in the United Kingdom, facing, as it does, straight at the enemy country, and it has, not unnaturally, been a favourite target for the Luftwaffe, and now, as it has become customary lately for every city and town which has been subject to enemy air attack to consider itself the worst bombed city in the whole of the country, I shall not indulge in any comparison, but I should merely like to state a few facts with regard to what has happened in Hull during the past 4½ years.
During that period Hull has had just under 100 air raids. By air raids, I mean when enemy aircraft have actually dropped bombs of a high explosive or an incendiary character on the City. In addition to that there have been more than 800 alerts, but in those cases the enemy aircraft have either not flown in the direction of Hull or, what has more frequently happened, have been driven off by our fighter aircraft or our antiaircraft defences. Had it not been for the very effective and comprehensive system of surface shelters, casualties would have been multiplied three or four times.
I may say that Hull is not a city which has been carefully planned. Like so many other old cities, it has just grown up on the site it has occupied, and I do not think any enthusiastic planner would con-


sider that the lay-out is such as might be considered necessary or advisable in a modern city. As a result of enemy action we have now an unrivalled opportunity for replanning as well as rebuilding the city. It can now be replanned, redeveloped and rebuilt on the most modern lines. An opportunity such as this is not likely to recur, and I think most of us sincerely hope that a similar opportunity will never occur again.
With regard to the actual Bill itself, it is divided into three Parts. Part I and Part III are, I think, largely non-controversial. The whole gist of the controversy lies in Part II, and, as I do not wish to take up more of the time of the House than is absolutely necessary, I will confine my remarks to that particular portion of the Bill.
We see under Paragraph 5 that
The Corporation may, by agreement, purchase or acquire or take on lease and hold, any lands within and without the City which in their opinion it is desirable that the Corporation should acquire for the development, disposal or utilisation by the Corporation, ….
Those are powers which are already held by corporations of municipalities such as Burnley, Bury, Salford, Sunderland, Wakefield and many others. The reason why Hull is applying for powers to purchase land outside the City is due to the fact that there are many most eligible sites just outside the boundaries of the City, sites where, thanks to the sub-soil, it is possible or easy to construct big works without the necessity of having to pile the foundations which it is necessary to do in most parts of the City of Hull. That is the reason why powers are being sought to purchase this land outside the City. As you will notice, this is done by agreement and, therefore, is not any form of requisitioning whatsoever.
In Paragraph 6 we find:
The Minister may by means of a Provisional Order, made by him and confirmed by Parliament, authorise the Corporation to purchase land compulsorily for industrial development purposes.
That is a case in which difficulty has arisen in coming to an agreement and the Corporation wish to have the power to come to the Minister and ask him to authorise the compulsory purchase of that land. In addition to having to come to the Minister for authority to do so, it is

also necessary to have the authority confirmed by this House and also in another place, which also gives sufficient protection for anybody whose interests may be affected, I may say in parenthesis that this power is already held by Jarrow, West Ham, Salford, Liverpool, Manchester, Burnley, Grimsby, Rotherham and many other places.
Under Clause 7 we find that
The Corporation may lay out and develop (a) any lands acquired by the Corporation under this Part of this Act for industrial development purposes; (b) any corporate lands belonging to the Corporation; and (c) any other lands belonging to the Corporation and not required for the purposes for which they were acquired or are held.
There, again, this power is already held by Jarrow, Stockton, Liverpool, Manchester, Burnley, Dewsbury, Rotherham, Sheffield, and other cities and municipalities.
In 1936 a Committee of this House sat under the late Captain Bourne and recommended that a Clause on these lines could normally be inserted in Private Bills and, according to the standard Clause issued, the House of Commons gave effect to the recommendation of Captain Bourne's Committee, which contained the following Clause:
The Corporation may, with the consent of the Minister, lay out and develop any lands at any time belonging to the Corporation and not required for the purposes for which they were acquired and may erect and maintain houses, shops, offices, warehouses and other buildings and construct sewers, drains, streets, road and ways on any such land.
Therefore, the power which is being applied for under Paragraph 7 of this Bill is nothing new in any way. It has been recognised already as a common form Clause in this House, and, as such, I suggest that it is not going very far to ask that powers similar to those already granted to the cities and municipalities which I have just enumerated could also be granted to the City of Hull.
Under Clause 8 it says:
The Corporation may advance money to the owner or lessee of any lands for the purpose of enabling or assisting him to erect buildings for industrial development purposes, houses, shops, offices, factory-buildings, warehouses, or other buildings on such lands …
That is the power of the corporation to advance money to individual undertakings to enable them to construct the necessary buildings for carrying on their work, and that power has already been granted to


the following municipalities and corporations: Coventry, Grimsby, Jarrow, Liverpool, Manchester, Rotherham, Salford, Sheffield, Stockton, Sunderland, Wakefield, Wallsall and West Ham, so, there again, the Corporation of the City of Hull is only asking for powers which have already been granted, and freely granted, to quite a large number of corporations or municipalities in the country.
The specific reason which is given for the rejection of this Bill in the Motion for the rejection which is on the Paper is that it would be better for this to be done by some central authority rather than by the Corporation of Hull itself, We all know, or, rather, we all think we know, that a Bill on those lines is already on the stocks at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, but, on the other hand, we, so far, have very little idea of what the contents of that Bill are going to be. Furthermore, we do not yet know how long it will be before. there is any chance of that Bill becoming an Act. As regards the re-development of Hull, time is of the essence of the contract. Rome was not built in a day, and a city can certainly not be planned in one day. With all this open space which is now advisable considerable time must elapse after the plan is finished, before the actual building can take place. These sites where demolished buildings stood, which are required by the corporation for widening or straightening the streets, or for erecting the buildings which they think are necessary or advisable, cannot be purchased in a short time.
Other corporations are circularising firms in Hull, asking them to transfer their businesses. They say, "Hull is a danger area. You see what has happened to you through having your business in Hull. You have been blown to pieces. What has happened to you once may happen again. You had better start business in our city. We can provide you with land, which Hull cannot do. We can, if you like, build your factory for you, which Hull cannot do; or if. you prefer to build it yourself, we can advance you the money." That, again, is a power which Hull, without this Bill, cannot possess. It is hopeless to expect Hull to compete with other cities and towns possessing advantages which Hull does not possess. There is a grave danger at present of

the wholesale transfer of industry from Hull to other places, simply because Hull has had to bear the brunt of enemy attack during these past four and a half years. We, therefore, ask that Hull should be given powers to enable us to rebuild the city and to reorganise and reestablish our industries, so that when the men come back from the war there may be work waiting for them. Unless those industries are reconstructed and rebuilt, there will certainly not be work for them. Unless we get such powers, Hull may easily become one of the distressed areas from which this country suffered so or 15 years ago. We want those buildings to be ready so that, when the men come back from the war, there will be work and wages waiting for them, so that they may live in comfort and share in the advantages of that new world for which we are all waiting.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, believing that reconstruction after bombing damage is essentially a matter for public legislation, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will enable a local authority to frame its own code for this purpose.
I find myself in the rather peculiar position of agreeing with almost everything that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) said, when he very ably supported the Motion for the Second Reading, which was by my hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, in accordance with the precedents al this House. I agree with practically everything that my hon. and gallant Friend said except his conclusion, namely, that the Bill should be now proceeded with. Our opposition to this Bill arises from no party issue whatever, because it seems that no party issue is involved. I understand that in the City of Hull the two main parties are united in wishing this Bill to be proceeded with. Those of us who are apposing it can very well understand that. We are actuated by no unfriendly motives towards the corporation and the people of Hull. Indeed, we have watched with admiration the attitude of Hull, which is one of the worst-bombed cities in the Kingdom; all the way through the perpetual bombings which have been referred to by my hon.


and gallant Friend, the people of Hull have shown patience, heroism, and gallantry, without any desire for self-dramatisation of any kind. Therefore, all one's predisposition would be to help, rather than to hinder. But we do not think that this Bill, in its present form, would be conducive to the best interests of the City of Hull, and certainly it would not be to the general interests of the country.
Why have we put clown this Amendment? The whole gravamen of our case is contained in the Amendment. We do not believe that it is right to proceed with a Bill which gives a special code for reconstruction after bomb damage to any one city or corporation in the Kingdom. This Bill, as its name implies, will apply to the City of Hull alone; it is obviously no part of the general legislation of the country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull pointed out that various other municipalities have had similar powers, but when he read out the list of municipalities which have obtained part of the powers which are sought for the City of Hull, I noticed that, as he took the Bill; Clause by Clause, different sets of municipalities had the different rights which were set out in those particular Clauses. There is enough divergence between those authorities which already have such rights, without our increasing the divergences by this Bill. The City of Liverpool has very extensive powers; and I think that we are to be blamed for not taking exception to that Bill when it was presented, as we are doing to this Bill.
These divergences between the various powers which corporations already possess have so far not done very much damage, but I would ask the House to consider what would happen if the process were continued further. Suppose the Hull Bill were given a Second Reading, and became an Act, it seems to me that, first, the heavily-bombed cities, such as Plymouth, Coventry, and Bristol, of which there are too many in the Kingdom, would ask for similar powers, and would add Clauses different to those which Hull has already got. Encouraged by their examples, there would be a rush of cities all over the country, and of county boroughs and even of urban districts, asking for Parliamentary sanction to be given to their own special codes for dealing with

bomb damage. That would make the whole position impossible. If you had, all over the country, different codes between one borough and another, or even between a borough and an urban district just outside it, think of the difficulties into which everyone would get, through not knowing exactly what powers there were. I can see disputes arising between the local authorities themselves in border-line cases. That is our main reason for opposing the Bill. I believe that the only people likely to benefit, in the long run, would be the lawyers. Judging from the peculiar legislation which we have been passing in the last few years, and observing the activities of planners, who' are pushing His Majesty's lieges through the labyrinthine lay-outs which they favour, I do not believe that those lawyers need fear having to rattle tin cups on the Embankment when the war is over: they will 'have plenty to do.
It is essential that a general code for dealing with bomb damage should be brought in by His Majesty' Government. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Town and Country Planning will definitely state that, within a very sort time, such a Bill will be brought forward. Those of us who advocate the rejection of this Bill feel that Hull had every right to ask for such a Bill. The borough council and their servants were, I think, acting out of the best motives, a trifle in advance of their time. They foresaw with alarm other cities, such as Liverpool, dragging from the City of Hull the industries which have been bombed out—or, rather, preventing them from going back and starting again in Hull. It was a very reasonable alarm, and I can understand the motives of those who brought in the Bill. In the Bill itself, I see very little to which we could object; indeed, we could have very well dealt with it, had it not been for the general issue involved by moving to leave out certain Clauses, One Clause, in particular, which is contrary to constitutional usage, is Clause 12, which authorises the corporation to borrow without previousy obtaining sanction. There are other Clauses, too, to which we take exception, but the Bill itself may have been on the right lines. It may be a help to the Government, in framing its own legislation, which we hope shortly to see introduced. Indeed, I hope that the Government Bill will bring forward improved delegated


powers for the boroughs, and, indeed, other authorities, very similar to the powers contained in this Bill. But, if I may repeat myself, the reason we are moving the rejection is that we maintain that reconstruction after bomb damage should be dealt with; not by piecemeal legislation, but, at the earliest possible moment, by a general code of legislation, produced by His Majesty's Government, and passed into law.

Mr. Levy: I beg to second the Amendment.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and ballant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), who represents that constituency with such distinction. It was only right and proper for the hon. Member to advocate what he thinks is in the interests of his own constituency, but, with regard to this Bill, we are now bordering on the question of reconstruction. The Government have created a Minister of Reconstruction, and the general reconstruction of bombed areas obviously must be done under a comprehensive plan which will be created by the Government. Not only are we concerned with buildings and the extension of buildings, and the layout and schemes for those buildings, but there are other things which have to be considered in relation to them. I hope I shall not create any hilarity when I say that water supply is essential, and I hope I am not out of Order—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot raise the general principles covered by the Ministry of Reconstruction, but must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Levy: What I am endeavouring to say is that it is quite impossible for Hull, or for any local authority, to create a scheme for reconstruction, which ought properly to be dealt with by the Government. I think there are 1,700 local authorities in the country. Try to imagine the chaos that would result if every local authority put forward its own scheme for the reconstruction of its area. Where would Government policy come in? It would really make it absurd, and therefore I say, without any disrespect, that we ought to reject this Bill, and all parties ought to see to it that the Government bring in a proper reconstruction policy of a universal character of benefit to the country as a whole and not only to the city of Hull.
That being so, if we allow this Bill to go through we handicap the very policy which nearly every hon. Member has endeavoured to adumbrate. It is no use the Government trying to side-step and put the burden on local authorities; neither is it any use for the local authorities themselves to undertake a burden that really belongs to the Government. Therefore, I am opposing this Bill because I think there is a principle involved which is far-reaching. Hull, whatever the city's borrowing powers may be, would be utterly incapable of undertaking proper reconstruction without the assistance of the Government and the Treasury. It is important that we should say, once and for all, that all these Bills that may be promoted by local authorities are in advance of the time, are in anticipation of Government plans, and should await the Government plans, because it is a Government job and not a local authorities' job. Therefore we, as Members of the House of Commons, if I may say so with great respect and humility, should say to Hull that we are not going to reject this Bill out of any disrespect for Hull, but because we believe that the Government will bring in, and ought to bring in, a general policy applicable to all these areas. A number of areas which have never been bombed require further town planning and further amenities in the way of housing and the like. We shall be cramping our own style if we allow the local authority to have this Bill. I beg to second this Amendment, and I sincerely hope, without any disrespect to Hull, that this Bill will be rejected in view of the necessity for a national policy to be created.

Mr. Windsor (Kingston-upon-Hull, Central): I have listened to some peculiar arguments from time to this in this House, but never to anything more peculiar than those of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of this Bill. If the position was so simple, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning was putting before the House a scheme for the rehabilitation of the blitzed cities, it would be a different proposition, but the fact is that all the various local authorities have been before the Minister, being desirous of knowing what he is going to do about it. Why all this delay? Again, I cannot understand the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) putting before the House an


Amendment along these lines. We are not appealing for support for this Bill purely because Hull is a bombed city. That merely adds to the desire for the Bill, that is all. What we are asking for is something that we needed in peace time. Hull is one of the distressed areas in peace time and had a large proportion of unemployment. There are other cities, too. I regret this as much as any hon. Member, but it is nauseating to find local authorities having a race with each other to see which is going to get in first to secure some economic advantage. That is why I am one of those who believe that this job ought to be done centrally, but, unless the Government are willing to act on some central lines, it leaves the local authorities no alternative but to submit a Bill to this House.
What is the purpose of the Bill? All we are asking for is what one district, as one of the opponents of the Bill has said, has already got—the right to develop economically outside its own boundaries. I mean the Corporation of Grimsby. They have almost identical powers to those for which we are asking. If there is any logic in it at all, if it is not a good thing for authorities to have power to develop, it is especially bad that some have already got them. It is a policy of going backwards rather than forwards. Hull is a badly blitzed city right on the edge of the Yorkshire coast. It has a go-ahead municipal administration, and all we desire is to see that some opportunity of earning a livelihood is given, not only to those who previously lived in the City of Hull, but also to those who will come back. We think, as the local authority, that we can assist in that direction by providing the means, if this House gives us the power to pursue a policy along those lines.
I implore the House not to reject this Bill. If, indeed, they do, it seems to me that they will act in a reactionary way, subject always to a decision that the Government themselves are willing to take up this responsibility of dealing with the economic, financial and other distress, not only in Hull but to all other blitzed cities.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: The House listened with great respect to the extremely able speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir Lambert Ward). This Bill comes before the House bearing

the names of the hon. Members for Hull, with the exception of one who is a Minister of the Crown, and, as my hon. Friend said in introducing the Bill, it has the support of the city council, irrespective of party. I am quite certain that the tone of the Debate has shown that the House itself is anxious to do its best for Hull, just as it is to do its best for other blitzed areas, but it is my duty to point out to hon. Members that it is not true to say that there is local unanimity in this matter. There may be unanimity in the city council of Hull. There is no such unanimity in the local authorities which border upon the city and which are going to be primarily affected by the passage of this Bill. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor) made a speech which, in many ways, afforded the strongest possible argument for the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) when he said that this was not a matter of wartime urgency but was a long-term matter.

Mr. Windsor: I did not say that. I said we needed such powers before the war.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: The OFFICIAL REPORT Will show which is correct. I think it is in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member said that Hull was one of the distressed areas which looked forward to this Bill as a Measure of great value in time of peace, which is a very powerful argument from one point of view, and I should be the last to quarrel with it. I am bound to point out, however, that the East Riding County Council is opposed to this Measure, and so is the Haltemprice Urban District Council, bordering upon Hull. The views of the county council are, quite briefly these. While doubting the expediency of granting any such powers in special circumstances to county boroughs, they strongly resent the exercise of these powers by the corporation in the area of the administrative county, which would be the case if the Bill was passed in its present form, and which could be exercised, not merely in Yorkshire, but anywhere where the corporation is so minded. I think that is perhaps stretching it a little bit, but it does show the importance of Members of this House representing county constituencies being extremely vigilant upon this issue, because, undoubtedly, this Bill,


if it goes through, would be used as a precedent for other applications of a similar type from other municipalities. Congestion of the time of the House is always an important matter, but, even if it were not so, we are likely to have a considerable number of Debates like this.
In a way, I stand betwixt and between. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) may laugh, but he is used to standing betwixt and between. Hon. Members need only read his speeches on the Education Bill. My constituency includes one of the Hull city housing estates, where the electors vote municipally in the City of Hull, and, for Parliamentary purposes, in my Division. Therefore, I am able to take a reasonably detached attitude on this subject. My view, briefly, is, that the Corporation of the City of Hull have rendered a public service in tabling this Bill. They have drawn attention, without any doubt whatever, to the extreme urgency of this matter, and for that the House is indebted to them, and I hope that this Debate will have an immediate result, and that while we take the view—what the Government view is, I do not know, and we shall doubtless hear in a few minutes from the Minister—that this House feels the sense of urgency on the matter of the planning of a blitzed area, this Kingston-upon-Hull Bill is entirely the wrong vehicle for the purpose. My hon. and gallant Friend need not make any apology at all for the speech he made, not the hon. Member opposite. They have raised the issue in a concrete form, and I hope that it will act as a spur to the Government. It is high time that we had before us these plans for the reconstruction of blitzed areas. I feel the sense of urgency in the matter, but as I have no desire to see other local authorities in that area overridden through a sudden and perhaps sentimental decision on the part of the House, I hope that we shall hear from the Minister that the whole issue is going to be dealt with immediately as a matter of national policy.

Mr. A. Bevan: I think the House will not sympathise with the argument used against this Bill that it asks for unusual powers to be conferred upon the Hull Corporation. That very often happens. One of the ways in which good legislation is built up in this country is that local authorities are sometimes given powers in advance of general

powers. When they have been tried out locally they are found then to be so beneficial that a Bill is passed making the same powers available throughout 'the whole country. It is no argument against the Bill at all that the Hull Corporation is coming forward for something which is not possessed by anybody else. The Hull Corporation deserves the sympathy of the House in having actually incurred the expense of bringing before the House a number of matters which the House itself should long ago have insisted on the Government doing. It is really a most extraordinary situation that a city which has been so badly blitzed as has Hull, and which suffers from lack of amenities through the age of the city and the way it has grown up should be put to the added disadvantage of having to spend the money of the ratepayers in order to make the Government face up to their responsibility.
If there were any argument against the Bill, it would be that the Government are now going to give to the country generally what the Hull Corporation is asking for in 'particular. If, therefore, the Minister rises in his place to-day and says that he proposes to bring in Bills dealing with these matters at once I shall support the Amendment. If, on the other hand, he does not offer to give such an assurance to the House, I shall support the Bill. The Bill is only wrong if it is untimely; and it is not that Hull is ahead of time, but that the Government are behind time. I would call attention to Clause 6. If the House decides that the Bill is to be proceeded with, I hope that those responsible for examining it will consider that Clause. I have never known such a Clause in a Private Bill. My memory may be at fault, but it says that the Minister may, by means of a Provisional Order made by him and confirmed by Parliament, authorise the Corporation to purchase land compulsorily for industrial development purposes.
I suspect that some of my hon. Friends opposing the Bill have Teally been concerned about the use of those words "to purchase land compulsorily for industrial development purposes." These are powers which some of us on this side of the House would like to see conferred upon all local authorities. I hope that will not be done by Provisional Orders placed before Parliament. Consider the situation that will


exist if that happens. We are enabling a local authority to bring a scheme before the Minister for the compulsory purchase of pieces of land either inside or adjoining the city. The city then receives the approval of the Minister, who makes a Provisional Order, and Parliament has to debate and confirm it before the Corporation can proceed to purchase the land. The business of the House will be hopelessly cluttered up if local authorities, who ought to have powers of compulsory purchase, exercise those powers under an instrument of that sort. Therefore, I most sincerely hope that we are either going to have powers of compulsory purchase conferred upon all local authorities, with such general restrictions as Parliament may lay down, or, if local authorities in particular are going to have powers of compulsory purchase, that the House will on each occasion examine the way those powers are exercised by those authorities.

Mr. Windsor: Is there anything unusual in that?

Mr. Bevan: It is unusual in that a Provisional Order on each occasion comes before Parliament. My hon. Friend must visualise the circumstances. If each local authority in Great Britain could exercise those powers of compulsory purchase only by an order confirmed by Parliament, our business would be hopelessly cluttered up.

Mr. Windsor: I agree, but our general political machinery is built in that way. It is the only way in which we have powers to do it.

Mr. Bevan: On the contrary. I would just ask for powers of compulsory purchase outright and in accordance with the normal sanction of the Ministry of Health. There is no reason at all for Clause 6. Local authorities have powers of compulsory purchase now without considering the House of Commons. You do not need a provisional order to be placed before Parliament and confirmed by Parliament before the order is exercised. But here is a proposal that is both bold and timid—bold in asking what we on this side know they want, and timid in still wanting to erect a barrier against the exercise of it, that barrier being a form of control in each case where the powers are exercised. All the reactionary interests would block each order each time

and we would have a whole series of Debates. Therefore, I hope that an instrument of this sort will not be repeated in any other Bills or in the wider legislation which the Minister proposes to bring before this House. My view, and probably that of many of_ my hon. Friends here, will depend entirely on the answer of the Minister. If he gives a firm assurance that all matters dealt with in the Bill are to be the subject of early legislation, then probably the Bill is unnecessary, and, if he does not, we shall vote for the Bill.

Mr. Reakes: I feel that I must intervene in this discussion because I represent a very badly blitzed area, my own constituency of Wallasey, which, incidentally, is part of Merseyside, which has been very badly blitzed. I have taken great interest in the matter, and I am convinced that the authorities of the Merseyside blitzed areas and of many other blitzed towns throughout the country with not appreciate the action of the City of Hull in bringing forward this Bill as a method of approach to the problem. It is entirely wrong as a method of approach to this great problem. This is a national problem, requiring a national policy, and such a policy should be brought in immediately. I am not against Hull being premature; I am surprised that Hull and other blitzed areas have been so patient; but I feel convinced that if this Bill is proceeded with, it will do Hull more damage than good. We of the blitzed areas want a national policy.

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): Surely the hon. Member does not intend that local authorities should sit still and do practically nothing until the national assembly does something?

Mr. Reakes: I do not say that at all. All I say is that we want a national policy, with priority for the labour available for reconstruction and priority as far as building and other materials are concerned, and the cost to be a national charge. This Bill asks for borrowing powers. It is an entirely wrong proceeding. We do not want Hull, Wallasey, Liverpool, Coventry or any other blitzed city or town to possess borrowing powers for this particular purpose. We ought to approach the matter in a way that will not make it necessary to borrow money for this sort of thing. I speak for myself, and I would never agree to a penny-piece being borrowed in


order to make good enemy damage to our big cities and towns such as those enumerated in this discussion. I appeal to the promoters of the Bill to withdraw it. I would hate to go into the Division Lobby against it, not that I care twopence about my vote being misunderstood. I have voted a few times in this House, and I do not think that one of my votes has been understood outside. I am not much worried about that as long as my conscience is clear and we carry on good work. As I have said, I would hate to vote against the Bill, and I do not want to be forced to have to do it. The wisest possible thing is for the promoters to withdraw it after an assurance from the Government that the problems of bombed areas are going to be faced up to immediately on national lines. I cannot conceive of the Government failing to give us that assurance.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would not normally have intervened at this stage in a Private Bill. The normal course in these matters is for the Bill to go to a Committee, and it is at that stage that Departmental observations upon its contents are heard and considered by the Committee. I would have followed that course in this case had it not been for the fact that the Amendment standing on the Paper brings the matter before the House on the Second Reading of the Bill as an issue that we have to decide now. As it has been brought before us, I think it is only right that I should at this stage, give the purport of the evidence which my Department, on behalf of the Government, would give before the Committee, so that the House can make up its own mind on the matter. Quite briefly, the view of the Government is that this problem of the bombed cities is so vast, so complex and so general over the whole country, that it ought to be covered by a national code of legislation designed for that particular purpose. The code ought to be potent enough to enable the work to go ahead as soon as we can build again, and elastic enough to suit the wide variety of circumstances which exist, both comparing the damage which different localities have suffered and their native resources, which vary very considerably. The task of framing this legislation has not proved easy. Much research into the actual position of the local authorities in

our towns and cities which have been affected has been necessary. The financial transaction itself is on a vast scale, and it has been necessary to go into these matters with great care, but a great deal of this work is accomplished, and I hope the House will have before it shortly a Bill embodying the Government's views on this particular—

Mr. A. Bevan: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "shortly"?

Mr. Morrison: In a short time.

Mr. Bevan: As that definition has been elastically used to cover years and weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a more definite idea of what he means?

Mr. Morrison: I do not want the House to pin me to a date. There are one or two outstanding matters which have yet to be fixed up but I would hope myself that the House would have the Bill in a very short time—sufficient for it to pass the Bill before the end of the Session with ample time for consideration.
I am not here to anticipate the contents of that Bill and still less do I feel able to anticipate the shape in which it will emerge when it has been through this House of Commons. But I would say that the powers proposed to be conferred in it arc, in the view of the Government, powerful enough for the purposes which they have to achieve. These powers should enable Hull, and every other bombed city, to set about the task of reconstruction as soon as the day happily dawns when we can build again.

Mr. Reakes: Does that mean that preferential priority rights would be given to these particularly bombed areas?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure the House will agree with me that one of the first tasks which awaits our building energies will be the reconstruction of some of those cities which have suffered.
I would also point out that the general code to which I have referred will deal with two matters with which this Bill now before us does not and cannot deal. One is the restriction of the price of land to a standard comparable with pre-war values. The other is—and this will be necessary—a very greatly accelerated process in the acquisition of land for reconstruction purposes. These things I hope the Bill will contain, and I hope that the House will


agree that they are necessary. These powers ought to be conferred upon Hull, not only upon Hull, but upon every city which has suffered resolutely in the cause of the country so that everyone can start fair when we can build again. The citizens of Hull have suffered great hardships, and they have suffered them with undaunted resolution and fortitude. The Corporation of Hull have shown the most praiseworthy zeal in preparing for peace. This Bill is an example of their zeal, but I am bound to say that if this Bill does go to a Committee, I shall be bound to offer there observations of the kind I have made to the House. With that, which is the best advice I can give to the House, I must leave it.

Mr. Muff (Kingston-upon-Hull, East): The Minister has been disappointing in what he has had to say in regard to this particular Bill. With regard to his general policy—I should not be in Order in discussing it at length—he will soon become known as the Minister for Procrastination. I want to bring back the House to this Bill, which is really in two sections. There are the financial sections, to bring the funding of debt and the transferring of funds up to date, and to repeal a Bill which is now 63 years old. With regard to some of the other Clauses, dealing with the acquisition of land, I would remind the House that three of them are model Clauses which were drafted by the late Captain Bourne in 1936 with the help of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams), because I noticed that his name is on the back of the Report. With regard to Clause 6, which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said was somewhat unusual, I am instructed that so far as municipal Bills are concerned, Clause 6 is quite ordinary in many Bills.
Now what is so extraordinary about this particular Bill? It is the Clause to enable the Corporation to lend money for the rehabilitation of shops, businesses, and, in some cases, houses. The reason why we ask for that Clause, which I believe is possessed by the Corporation of Liverpool and there are certainly other 13 corporations which have these powers or similar powers, is that we wish to put it in black and white that where a business has been bombed, and has improvised premises inside or outside the city,

we are asking for powers because the credit of Hull is good. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes) in a Sunday paper that Hull was bankrupt. We shall repay to the Treasury half a million of money which has been lent to us during our time of stress. We have only been able to do it at a terrible price, and that is because we kept the rates at 20S. 6d. in the That is the price we have had to pay financially in order to repay our debts, and we shall repay the last of the money in the course of the next few days, if not this week. So the credit of Hull stands high, and if a business has to be rebuilt, recasted, rehabilitated, we say, "Do not go into the dilapidated state of premises you were in before, we will help you to build something better." That is the reason for this unusual Clause asking for powers to lend money in order to rehabilitate and rebuild to the extent of 66-i per cent., to help these people to put 'their 'businesses in an efficient state. Not only that, but the shops and the houses as well. We come to this House and we ask it to do the normal thing and send the Bill upstairs to be examined in the proper and usual way.
The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) very properly referred to the fact that the East Riding County Council is objecting—a proper thing to do; that Haltemprice Urban District Council is objecting—quite right; that the Holderness Rural District Council have a petition. The proper place to listen to those petitions is upstairs. I want to remind the House that there were 320,000 inhabitants in the city of Hull in, a congested area. A corresponding city Of the same size would have an acreage twice the amount of the acreage of the city of Hull. Therefore, within the Parliamentary area we had to acquire land and build upon it, and some of the finest housing estates—a credit to any municipal authority—have been built in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's constituency. We have had to do it, and we shall have to do more of it. We are not going to rob Bridlington of a petition. We do not want to rob Bridlington, 40 miles away, I believe, of their Naboth's Vineyard. We do not want to rob the hon. and gallant Member of any of his land; we want to rob him of some of his electors, and we shall do it. But that is another story.
The reason why we wish to do all this is owing to the dire need of Kingstonupon-Hull. Our industries were damaged within five days of the war breaking out. We lost many trawlers. I grant that instead of being under the Red Ensign, they were under the White Ensign—St. George's cross—and proud of it. Sometimes when I think of Hull, I think another cross ought to be given to symbolise such a place as Hull for the way it has borne up against its travail and tribulation and its 810 alerts. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a human problem. That is why I want the Bill to go upstairs. When the Prime Minister came to the dockside in East Hull, for the first time almost in his life, he could not make a speech. All he could say was, "The best that can be given should be given to such a place as this." We started in 1938 to build those surface shelters which were talked about and, as a result, a very small percentage of the population of Hull has been killed. That is bad enough, but if it had not been for the foresight of that municipal corporation it would have been much more. Night after night they went into their shelters, and the psychology of these resolute people was really epitomised in a little girl at the dockside.
The wife of a member of the Government told me this story. This was the little girl's reaction after spending night after night in a shelter, sitting on a hard concrete seat. She simply stretched herself and said, "Oh mum, my burn is numb." That, I put it, reflects the psychology of the people we four Members have the honour to represent. I support the Senior Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Sir Lambert Ward) in his introduction of the Bill, and also the hon. Member for Central Hull (Mr. Windsor) in supporting it, and I say to the House that it would be a gracious act of the House to do the usual thing, not the unusual thing, and give this Bill a Second Reading and send it upstairs to be examined. I hope the House will give a Second Reading for the Bill without a Division.

Mr. Buchanan: It is often said that adversity makes strange bedfellows. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff) is, I think, the most fervent supporter of the Government in the House.

Mr. Muff: Of course I am.

Mr. Buchanan: I am usually the most fervent opponent of the Government but on this occasion he opposes the Government while I intend to support them. My hon. Friend made a great speech about the City of Hull, with which nobody would disagree. To defeat this Bill would make us feel that we had done something to that great city, which has passed through very difficult times. That is the issue. What are the facts? The Minister has just made a statement to the House. I have no patience with the view that Hull should have to wait, or that Hull should not get exceptional powers. I remember Liverpool once getting certain powers to deal with messengers and boys, powers that were granted to nobody else because we took the view that Liverpool, as a great port, should have the powers and that if they were desirable we could extend them. The Minister has now said that the Government intend to introduce a Bill to cover not only Hull but every bombed city in the country. What is wrong with that? That is a great victory for Hull. I am sure Hull would be the last city to think that only its problems were to be solved after the great bombing of our cities. Hull has succeeded in getting from the Minister the statement that not only is she to be saved, but that every other bombed city in the country is to be saved. That is a real step forward. A service has been rendered in bringing forward this Bill, because the Government have said they intend to proceed on certain lines and that they will pass their Measure before the end of the Session.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Hull asked the House to give this Bill a Second Reading and to send it upstairs. If that were to happen a Committee would have to consider purely a Hull Bill. But who could discuss a local Bill with a Bill such as that which the Government envisage in the offing? What we have been asked to do is to pass this Bill and give Hull the opportunity of engaging counsel and making preparations for rehabilitation. How can we do that when we know that at the end of it all the rejection of such a Bill is almost certain. Nevertheless, I welcome Hull's action; they have done a magnificent piece of work. I also welcome the Minister's statement and I hope that the Govern-


ment's Measure will be introduced without delay and will be a real contribution to the benefit of those places which deserve well of us all.

Sir George Schuster: I do not want to make a speech on this Bill; I merely want to ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning a question. Many of us have been listening to this Debate with great interest because we may have constituencies that were most anxious to support Hull in getting these powers. There are many towns that would not necessarily be classed as badly blitzed towns yet which require schemes for rearrangement of their industries just as badly as if Hitler had destroyed them. The Minister has said to Hull, "You wait. Within a short time—and that means within a time which will give us a chance of getting a Bill through before the end of the Session—you will get an Act of Parliament which will not merely enable you to purchase land by agreement but will give you power to acquire land compulsorily at prices comparable to those prevailing in 1939." The question I want to ask is this: Am I, as a representative of a county borough, entitled to say to my people: "You are quite safe in going ahead in making all your plans. You will not be wasting your time. The Government intend to bring in a Measure and if they get through the House what they propose to do you will have ample latitude for the making of reasonable arrangements"?

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the asking of this question has nothing to do with Hull, and I do not see how the Minister could answer it.

Sir G. Schuster: I was merely asking my right hon. Friend to elucidate a statement which he himself made, a statement which, I understand, might very much influence the way some of us vote if there is to be a Division.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: My intention is to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill on this ground. The people who are opposing it have nothing very definite against the Bill; it is really more against the Government. If Hull wants the Bill—and we hear that there will be petitions against it—it seems that the most sensible thing the House can do is to give

it a Second Reading and let it go upstairs and be considered by one of our Committees, which will hear evidence on oath from both sides. After that, the House can then throw the Bill out on the Third Reading if it likes.

Mr. A. Bevan: May I point out that the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion would be that Hull would be invited to spend a large amount of money on things which would be entirely abortive, because the same situation as arises now would arise again.

Sir C. MacAndrew: That is quite true, but I would be out of Order in going into all that now. When I was Chairman of the Private Bill Committees I did all I could to hurry them on, because there was a great deal of money wasted. Nevertheless, when a great Corporation like Hull asks for a Bill like this I would vote for the Second Reading anyhow.

Mr. Wakefield: There are two main points which speakers in support of this Bill made—first, that the Bill should go through now in order that Hull may be helped because of her severe blitzing, and, second, that the powers Hull now possesses are quite out of date and ought to be brought into line with those of other great cities. Every Member in the House wants to see Hull have every possible advantage because of the severe blitzing that city has undergone. But we have heard from the Minister of Town and Country Planning that legislation is coming before the House this Session which will satisfy that first point. Hull will not be able to get on with rehabilitation any quicker by having this Bill than by waiting for the main legislation of Parliament. That seems to be an essential point. Therefore, it will not help Hull at all to have the Bill through on that point. As to Hull's greater powers, I think it would be in the interest of that city to wait until this legislation has gone through so that Hull can reconsider her position in the light of the new legislation which will affect all local authorities in the country.
It may well be that Hull will find some Clauses in the proposed Bill will not be necessary when the new legislation which the Minister has promised goes through. On the other hand, Hull may find that new Clauses will be required as additions to the new legislation. I think it would


save the ratepayers' money and the time of Parliament, which is most important, if this Bill were dropped now until the legislation which the Minister of Town and Country Planning has promised has been passed. I came here intending to take the action which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) has taken. I want to see Hull have all the powers to develop quickly. Having heard the Minister I think Hull will have that opportunity

Divison No. 17.
AYES.



Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hollins, J. H. (Silvertown)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Barnes, A. J.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. G. I. C, (E'burgh)
Sexton, T. M.


Barstow, P. G.
Hynd, J. B.
Shaw, Capt. W. T. (Forfar)


Beaumont, Hubert (Bailey)
Key, C. W.
Shinwell, E


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwall)
Kirkwood, D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W. D.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Burden, T. W.
Liddall, W. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Burke, W. A.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cove, W. G.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Maitland, Sir A.
Tinker, J. J.


Enlwistle, Sir C. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Viant, S. P.


Errington, Squadron-Leader E.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Foster, W.
Morrison, Major J. G. (Salisbury)
Watson, W. McL.


Frankel, D.
Naylor, T. E.
Watt, F. C. (Edinburgh, Cen.)


Furness, S. N.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Gallacher, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W.


Gibbins, J.
Price, M. P.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gledhill, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Goldie, N. B.
Quibell, D.J. K.



Groves, T. E.
Riley, B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Guy, W. H.
Ritson, J.
Colonel Sir Lambert Ward and




Mr. G Muff.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Daggar, G.
Hopkinson, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Cannock)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Isaacs, G. A.


Anderson, Rt. Hon. Sir J (Sc'h Univ.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jeffreys, Gen. Sir G. D.


Apsley, Lady
Debbie, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Douglas, F. C. R.
Jewson, P. W.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Drewe, C.
John, W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k Newington)


Beaumont, Maj. Hon. R. E. D, (P'ts'h)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Beech, Major F. W.
Duckworth, W. R, (Moss Side)
Keeling, E. H.


Beechman, N. A.
Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Kendall, W. D.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Benson, G.
Elliot, Li.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, Sir John Graham (Scottish U's)


Berry, Hon. G. L. (Buckingham)
Elliston, Captain Sir G. S.
King-Hall, Commander W. S. R.


Bevan, A, (Ebbw Vale)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kirby, B. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bossom, A. C.
Fleming, Squadron-Leader E. L.
Lawson, J. J. (Cheiter-le Street)


Bowles, F. G.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir Ian (Lonsdale)
Leach, W.


Braithwaite, Major A. N. (Buckrose)
Galbrailh, Comdr. T. D.
Lindsay, K. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. J. G. (H'dern's)
Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Lipson, D. L.


Brass, Capt. Sir W.
Gates, Major E. E.
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)


Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.
Gibson, Sir C. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham)
Glanville, J. E.
Longhurst, Captain H. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grant-Ferris, Wing-Commander R.
Lucas, Major Sir J. M.


Buchanan, G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard


Cadogan, Major Sir E.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)


Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
McEntee, V. La T.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Carver, Colonel W. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mack, J. D.


Cary, R. A.
Gunston, Major Sir D. W.
McKie, J. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Challen, Flight-Lieut. C.
Hambro, Capt. A. V.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hammersley, S. S.
Mathers, G.


Cobb, Captain E. C.
Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J,


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Harvey, T. E.
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Molson, A. H. E.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N. E.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Universities)


Culverwell, C. T.
Heneage, Lt.-Col. A. P.
Mort, D. L.

and I suggest that in her own interests as well as in the interests of national planning this Bill should not have its Second Reading now.

Question put, "That the words pro-posed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 177.

Murray, Sir D. K. (Midlothian, N.)
Ross Taylor, W.
Teeling, Flight-Lieut. W.


Murray, J. D. (Spennymoor)
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)
Thorneycroft, Major G. E. P. (Stafford)


Nail, Sir J.
Salt, E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Savory, Professor D. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G. (Leicester, W.)
Scott, Donald (Wansbeck)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Nield, Lt.-Col. B. E.
Scott, Lord William (Ro'b'h &amp; Selk'k)
Watt, Brig. G. S. Harvie (Rithmond)


Nunn, W.
Shephard, S.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Pearson, A
Shuts, Col. Sir J. J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
White, H, (Derby, N. E.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
White, H. Graham (Birkenhead, E.)


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Southby, Comdr. Sir A. R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lt.-Col. G.


Procter, Major H. A.
Stokes, R. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Raiket, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.
Storey, S.
Wootton-Davies, J. H.


Rankin, Sir R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
York, Major C.


Reakes, G. L. (Wallasey)
Strickland, Capt. W. F.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Robertson, D. (Streatham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Ross, Sir R. O. (Londonderry)
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)
Major M. Pethcrick and




Mr. T. Levy.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House, believing that reconstruction after bomb damage is essentially a matter for public legislation, declines to give'a Second Reading to a Bill which will enable a local authority to frame its own code for this purpose.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS in the Chair]

CLAUSE 2.—(Special provisions as to increase of pensions payable under the Superannuation Acts.)

Postponed proceedings on Amendment: In page 2, line 40, to leave out "six", and insert "twelve."—[Sir G. Jeffreys.]

Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the Clause", put, and agreed to.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "five", and to insert "seven and one half."
When the proceedings on the Bill were interrupted I was dealing with an interruption on the pert of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown). I should like to have an opportunity, though we seem to have passed to a later stage, of continuing the remarks that I was making.

The Deputy-Chairman: As the right hon. Gentleman says, we have passed that. I daresay he might have an opportunity on the Question "That the Clause stand part," but he must not begin a different point on another Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 3, line 2, leave out "thirty", and insert "forty-five."

In line 3, leave out "thirty", and insert "forty-five."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the 'Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. Anderson: With regard to the general structure of the Clause. I should like first to give an answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys), who asked whether it was worth while to allow a sense of grievance to remain unallayed. My whole purpose in including in the Bill the provisions of Clause 2, which do not fit conformably with the other provisions of the Bill, is to go as far as I possibly can, without giving away what I regard as a vital matter of principle, to meet a sense of grievance which I know to exist and, as the Committee may be interested to know to what extent any sense of grievance has been met by what is now proposed by this Clause, let me give these particulars. The number of officers drawing retired pay the rates of which have been affected by the stabilisation of 1935 is estimated at 16,000. The number whose pensions are less. than £400 a year, and who will therefore get the full 10 per cent. addition, is estimated at 10,000. The number of officers between £400 and £600 a year retired pay who will get not the full 10 per cent., but 7½ per cent., is estimated at 2,800. Therefore, the total number of officers whose grievance, such as it is, will be wholly or substantially removed by the provisions of this Bill is 12,800 out of the total of 16,000.
That is the measure of the extent to which by this provision we have been able to meet the grievance. The purpose of the Amendment that my hon. and gallant Friend sought to make was not to do away with the ceiling of £600 altogether, because that would not have been consistent with the Financial Resolution, but he proposed to raise it to the level of £1,200, thus bringing in, I think he would agree, practically all the retired officers in whose case he is interested. My position on that was that to introduce at this time of day a mathematical formula for the purpose of adding automatically to pensions guaranteed before this war under conditions measured by a change in the cost of living, would involve me in very unfortunate consequences. I should certainly not know, if I did that, how to answer any claims from serving civil servant or officers that they should be given an increase in their pay corresponding to the increase in the cost of living. We have not followed that practice. We have tapered sharply the additions given in respect of the changed circumstance due to the war to serving civil servants. We give proportionately much more to the lower ranks than to those high up, and we stop altogether at the level of £1,000 a year. A civil servant on £1, 000 a year gets under present arrangements a war bonus of 19s. a week, which is something like 2½ per cent. of his salary. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), while not supporting my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield to the full extent, asked, Why not draw the line at £1,000 'because that is the figure adopted in the Civil Service? I do not know whether he has in mind a tapering scale ending at £1,000, corresponding to what is in the Bill ending at £600, but I would like to make the point that we have now arranged—and I am sure it was a welcome decision—that war bonus to serving civil servants should be included with salary in the computation of pension.
I do not think it would be practicable or in any way desirable to deal with persons who have retired—in some cases who have retired long ago—in a more favourable way than we deal with those who are at present serving the State. The position of a serving officer at £1,000 a year is that when he retires his pension will be computed on his £I,000 plus his bonus, and the maximum pension he can draw

under existing arrangements under the Superannuation Acts, apart from very special cases, is £500 a year. Beyond that £500 a year the serving man will not be eligible for any addition to his pension. Logically, I ought to have taken that figure of £500 a year and made that the ceiling and not £600, but I was anxious to go as far as I felt I reasonably could and took £600 as the figure. That is my justification for what is proposed, and while I am as anxious as anyone can be to remove any sense of grievance, although it may not be wholly well-founded, I ask the Committee to accept my view that this is a generous Bill, that the maxima which I have proposed in Clause 2 are substantial, that they substantially increase the benefits that will accrue to those retired officers in whom hon. Members who have spoken are specially interested, and that I have, in fact, gone as far as I could reasonably be expected to go.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I do not think we could have had a better revelation of the complete mental confusion which prevails in the minds of the Treasury and the Chancellor than the speech to which we have just listened. I want to take one sentence from it and test it by reference to actual fact. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I do not think it practicable to deal differently with existing civil servants and civil servants of the past who are now pensioners."

Sir J. Anderson: I think I said "more favourably."

Mr. Brown: "More favourably" means the same as "differently." The Chancellor tells us that he does not think it practicable to deal differently or more favourably with one category as compared with another. But that it precisely the effect of this Bill! Let me compare two cases. Take first a civil servant now drawing £150 a year, and then a pensioned civil servant whose pension is of the same amount. The serving civil servant, as things are, will receive a war bonus of 19s. a week. 'The pensioned civil servant under this Bill will get nothing like that figure. The truth is that the Chancellor does not understand the Bill. The fellow who drafted it does understand it, and he ought to be crucified for drafting it. There is no consistency about the Bill. It is a contemptuous, mean and ungenerous hotch-potch. The speech of the Chancellor shows plainly


that it is an unconsidered Bill, which he does not understand any more than the Financial Secretary does.

Mr. Mathers: I rise to put a point to the Chancellor which will take us out of this atmosphere. To enable the right hon. Gentleman to comprehend my point I must take him back to the favourable answer, as I considered it, which was given on Second Reading to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) in relation to railway superannuitants. The opening words of this Clause, "Pensions payable under the Superannuation Acts, 1894–1943," have been interpreted or rather misinterpreted by a number of people who have retired on superannuation from the railway service to include Railway Superannuation Acts which were passed between 1834 and 1943. I do not take that view, but I would like the Chancellor to make the position clear to those people who have to some extent pinned their hopes upon this Clause. I would like to ask him whether, following on the indication given on Second Reading that he would be willing to hear from the railway companies in relation to their super-annuitants, any developments have taken place 'and if any approaches have been made to him with a view to dealing with the position of the railway companies vis-à-vis this Bill. So far as I can learn, none of these developments has taken place and I am disappointed. After the passing of the Bill will the right hon. Gentleman still be willing to have consultations with the railway companies and those representing railway superannuitants with a view to coming to some arrangement with regard to the superannuation allowances that are paid to railway servants?

Sir J. Anderson: It is the fact—and it is important that any doubts should be cleared up—that the reference in Clause 2 to the Superannuation Acts, 1834–1943, does not include any of the Acts under which the pensions of railway servants are granted. What my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said on Second Reading was:
The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden)) made an inquiry with regard to railway servants, and asked whether the Chancellor would make it possible for railway servants to receive these or similar benefits. All I can say is that, at the present

time the railways are subject to Government control, and if the railways come to the Government and make representations on that point, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give them very careful attention." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1944; col. 1835, Vol. 397.]
That is still the position. I do not think that representations have been made by the railways, but if they are they will certainly receive careful consideration as promised.

Mr. Mathers: Do I understand that no referencesto any arrangements of that kind require to be made in this Bill?

Sir J. Anderson: They could not he made in the Bill as they would be entirely outside its scope.
May I make one observation in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby? He accused me of not understanding the effect of the Bill. I think he will find, if he goes into the matter a little more carefully, that the misunderstanding is on his side. If I understood his point correctly, he made a comparison between the treatment of a serving officer at a comparatively low rate of salary and the treatment given by this Bill to a pensioner. It is perfectly clear that the treatment given to a pensioner is relatively generous, certainly for those on the lower rates. What my hon. Friend has, I think, overlooked is that the Bill applies to future pensioners as well as to past pensioners. A person on a low rate of pay who now retires and receives a pension computed on his pay and bonus will still be entitled to the benefits of Clause r, although, in applying Clause 1, that element in his pension which relates to bonus will be taken into account.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The Chancellor has completely misunderstood my point. He said that he found it impracticable to make a distinction between the serving man and the pensioner. I showed that, as between the civil servant and the pensioner receiving the same amount of money, the Chancellor provided different compensation for one as compared with the other. His only reply to that is to tell me that when a civil servant retires in future he will have two systems of treatment, one more generous than the other. That is no answer to my point. My point is that although the Chancellor said he found it impossible to distinguish in treatment between two persons, the one serving and the other not


serving, he has in fact treated them differently under the Bill.

Question, "That amended, stand part and agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Supplementary and administrative provisions.)

Mr. Molson: Mr. Molson rose—

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would be convenient for the Amendments to this Clause to be discussed together?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment which I have selected is the first on to-day's Order Paper, page 2030. The first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) on page 959 of the Amendment Paper, in respect of this Clause, is not selected. The second in the name of the same hon. Member will be selected, and when the lion. Member who is now about to address the Committee has finished moving his Amendment, I propose to put the first three words, so that the Amendment to which I have referred can be preserved.

Mr. W. J. Brown: The proposal of my Amendment is to deal with what I may roughly describe as the amount of disregard permissible under the Bill and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss whether the disregard in assessing the present income shall be what the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests.

The Deputy-Chairman: We had better wait until we reach the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Molson: I beg to move, in page 3. line 24, to leave out paragraph (a).
I do so chiefly for the purpose of eliciting an explanation from the Government of why this particular provision has been included. It was made plain on the Second Reading that the general structure of the Bill is that, under Clause 1, pensioners who seek to obtain an increase in their pensions have to establish a position of hardship before they are entitled to claim an increase. Therefore it follows that a means test has to be applied. I do not understand why, in the case of pensioners who have some other source of income than their pen-

sion, the first £52 a year should be excluded. Taking the means test as a whole, there has been a tendency in recent legislation to introduce this policy of disregarding certain sources of income. I have had some experience of the means test in the case of the Poor Law and I have seen from experience how undesirable it is to have an arbitrary rule that certain sources of income should be excluded from consideration.
If it is desirable to relax the strincrency of a means test, it is far better to do it by taking account of the fact that a person who is in some special need has a greater need for income than a person who is not in special need. It is better from that point of view not to exclude from consideration part of the income which a man is receiving, but to recognise that he is in need of a larger income. Applying the same kind of consideration to this means test, we here treat in a special and more favoured way an income which is derived from some other source than we do the pension itself. It would be more in accordance with the principle of the Bill if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided upon a certain ceiling for incomes of all kinds, whether derived exclusively from pension or partly from pension and partly from other sources.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am amazed at the speech to which we have just listened. I seldom hear the hon. Member make anything but a perfectly sycophantic speech to the Front Bench, designed to get the Government out of their difficulties whenever they run up against any, and I think the repute of the Young Tory Party must be undergoing a series of shocks from the speeches of the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson). When we were discussing a ceiling to the Bill earlier today, and some of us were trying to increase it from the figure proposed by the Chancellor to a much more adequate one, there was no voice from the hon. Member saying that it would be very much better to leave out this paragraph than to increase the ceiling under Clause 1 (3)—or whatever it was. He was silent. He only raises his voice against the Clause when it is proposed to increase the disregard.

Mr. Molson: I was not silent. I opposed it.

Mr. Brown: If so, the hon. Member's crime is worse than I thought, and the


degree of my disapprobation is increased. Now he lifts his voice against Clause 1 (a) which provides that the first £52 of a pensioner's income should be disregarded for the purpose of computing the ceiling under the Bill. The remedy is not to delete this paragraph but to keep it there, and to increase the amount from £52 to a much more substantial figure, in order that thrift should not be penalised. Those words ought to evoke a roar of applause from the Benches opposite. How often have We heard from them that thrift should not be penalised? How often has the poor old widow been dragged out, in discussions upon railway nationalisation? Here, the hon. Member would penalise thrift. He would not propose to disregard the £52 of income, but would include it, and therefore would cut out more people. I hope that the hon. Minister will disregard what the hon. Member has said 'and will keep the paragraph in, and that we shall discuss whether the ceiling should be £52 or something else and shall decide in favour of its being something else.

Mr. Astsheton: The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has answered the points that were put by the mover of the Amendment, but I hope that the Committee will not conclude that I agree with the rest of his speech. The Committee is satisfied that the Clause is reasonable and that £52 a year is not an unreasonable sum to allow for this purpose. I am certain that if we were to propose now to increase it we should find ourselves getting into difficulties with the Chair on this Amendment, as being far in excess of any hardship scheme.

Mr. Molson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "fifty-two", and to insert two hundred and eight."
I challenge the moral right of the Treasury to import a ceiling into the grant of pension increases, or into the disregard of so small an amount as £52 a year. I have said several times to-day, and I hope to keep on saying it until I have driven this point home, that when pensions were going down there was no question of a qualification of this kind at all. There was no means test, and no disregard, nor any of the other tests that the

Bill provides. There was automatic and mathematical reduction of pension as the cost of living figure went down. I submit that there is no moral case for refraining from the same automatic and mathematical increase, without all these ceilings and disregards, when the cost of living figure is going up. This is the inexorable and irrefragable logic and merit of the situation. In order to make this Clause innocuous I propose to substitute £208 for £52.

Amendment negatived.

Sir I. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "Act," to insert:
and any income accruing to the pensioner from any pension granted on account of death or disablement which arises from service in His Majesty's naval, military or air forces
In 1934 I asked the House of Commons to agree to a proposal that the part of a disability pension paid in respect of compensation for disability, as opposed to the part which might be said to be paid for the sustenance of the affected person, should be left out of account when the State, through its various machinery, was considering the grant of public assistance. The principle was adopted, and has been a current part of our legislation ever since. The purpose of the proposed Amendment is to ensure that where a civil servant happens also to have been disabled, the part of his pension payable in respect of disability shall be left out of account, in addition, of course, to the £52 already left out of account in accordance with the Clause.
I am not quite sure whether the Second Schedule has the effect which I want to secure by my Amendment. If it has, and if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can convince me that it has, I shall be very pleased. At this hour, and with so much business on hand, I do not think it is necessary for me to argue this case. The House of Commons has long recognised that a disability pension is a sum of money not only to live upon but to compensate a disabled person for the loss he bears day by day in his work. I cannot help thinking that the Committee will wish for a substantial concession to be made. If the concession is already in the Measure, I hope that an assurance will be given that any increases due to lower paid civil servants shall not in any way take account of any wound or disability pension which they may be also receiving.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). It seems to me quite clear that in the cases coming under Clause 2 of the Bill the disability pension is excluded from consideration by paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Second Schedule. But ex-Service personnel may perhaps be desirous of claiming under Clause 1 of the Bill. It may be to their advantage in certain cases if they do, and provision is made by Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, as I understand it, for their being able to claim under whichever Clause is to their advantage, whether Clause 1 or 2. If they come under Clause there is no provision to exclude, in assessing this £52 a year, the pension which they are getting in respect of their disability, and while the principle appears to be conceded by the words in the Schedule that a disability pension should be excluded from consideration, it appears to me important for the sake of having it absolutely clear that the same exception should be inserted in paragraph (1) (a) of Clause 3.

Sir W. Allen: I would like to support the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I will give a case in point. A gentleman writes to me:
… in a misguided moment after having served (in the R.I.C.) for 28 years, being on pension and holding a splendid job, I resigned and enlisted in 1914, winding up badly disabled in 19r8 in the Italian campaign, to return to Ireland to be further mauled up to 1922, and lost my job in addition. Consequent on being awarded a military disability pension I am only entitled to 1 75. 2d. under the Pre-war Pensions Act.
There is a case in point where, because of a disability pension, the pre-war pension to which the man is entitled for 28 years' service is reduced to 7s. 2d. Under no consideration should the Committee accept a position like that, where someone who has fought through the war of 1914–18 and receives a disability pension, should have his former pension for 28 years' service curtailed. I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us something and give us some reason why, if this Amendment is not to be allowed, it should not be allowed.
We are here discussing these pensions probably for the last time, and we must take the opportunity, although perhaps it delays the business, to put these points

before the Treasury. It seems to me that this Bill has been like the Hindenburg line. There is barbed wire all round the Treasury and we cannot get near, and there does not seem to be any chance of amelioration of the condition of some of these people. I have been accused of, or given credit for, taking the part of the old disabled pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary and their widows. I am also considerably interested in the ex-soldiers on pensions, and this particular Amendment is one which goes to the root of the matter. Pensions ought to be completely disregarded, and those receiving them ought to get the full credit as pensioners of the Royal Irish Constabulary in addition to their disablement pension. I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I want to raise two points. First, I want to support what has been said about the disregard of pensions due to men because they have been injured by virtue of their military service, or to their widows where the men have been killed. I want to ask the Committee to note that, On page the disregard of pension is provided for in paragraph 9 (a) and (b). And the language used there is this, that the pension shall be disregarded
if it has been granted on account of death or disablement which is attributable to service in His Majesty's naval, military or air forces.
We have had many Debates in this House in the past about the difference between "attributable to" and "aggravated by."

Sir I. Fraser: Are we not anticipating an Amendment which is down on this very Clause to deal with this particular point?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure on that. I hope that if that is so the hon. Member will bear in mind that if he goes too far on that point he may cut out another Amendment.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to do that. I only want to see that what the hon. and gallant Member wants to safeguard is safeguarded in all parts of the Bill, and not only in that part of it in relation to which he has put down his Amendment. I merely mention the point that paragraph 9 as at present drafted may be dangerous from the paint of view of the men with whom he is concerned. I would


like to associate myself with his representations. The second point is that if the Committee looks at the Second Schedule, page 11,they will see this:
For the purpose of determining the percentage by reference to which the authorised increase of a pension specified in the First Schedule to this Act is to be—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we in Order in discussing the terms of the Schedule here, when we are discussing an Amendment to Clause 3? Should we not reserve such discussion for the Schedule?

The Deputy-chairman: I think the point about the Schedule should come later, and that we should try to keep to this Amendment.

Mr. Brown: So far in these discussions, when we have dealt with a point on a Clause which affected another Clause to be considered later, we have rather taken the two together for the purpose of getting clear what we are seeking to do. The only point I want to ask is, assuming that the Financial Secretary will make it plain that Service pensions granted in respect of a man's military, naval or air service will be treated as a part of the disregard, will he make a statement at the same time about old age pensioners?

The Deputy-Chairman: No, that would be out of Order.

Mr. Brown: Again I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Williams, but if we are asking that one type of pension should be included in this disregard, there might be some force in the position of other pensioners being taken into account. I do not know the effect on the old age pensioners but the old age pensioners would very much like to know.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I would like to say how very warmly I wish to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I feel it is a very great hardship if pensions which are granted for disabilities received in war by members of the Services are in any way to be a bar to their receiving the full pensions for their service. I would only add one word. I have known recently of cases of men who were in receipt of disability pensions on account of injuries received in the last war, which were assessed at a certain disability value, if one can use

that expression, by the Ministry of Pensions when the disability pension was first granted. They have definitely grown more serious with age and have handicapped them more and more in pursuing any form of vocation or work. Far from these pensions being a bar to receiving Service pension in addition I suggest that they might well in future be increased so as to take into account the increasing effect in the way of disability due to increasing age of the recipient.

Mr. Assheton: I should like if I may, if I can do so without getting out of Order, to make it clear to the hon. and gallant Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) that the Amendment he has put down to the Schedule, the very last Amendment, is one which, should the Chair be good enough to call it, I shall be anxious to accept. In order to avoid getting out of Order I am afraid I cannot pursue that aspect of the matter further now. With regard to the Amendment which is at present before the Committee it is clear that my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to amend the Clause and provide that for the purpose of this hardship scheme the whole of the disability pension should be disregarded. It has been made clear in the earlier stages of this Bill that this is in fact a hardship Bill, and this particular Clause in fact applies to Clause 1. This disregard of £52 income is quite an innovation, and is not to be found in earlier pensions increases Acts. I think it is a concession which the Committee has welcomed.
It seems to me, and it seemed to the Chancellor, that it was quite out of accord with a hardship scheme, and quite a contradiction in terms, to disregard income from whatever source it is derived up to any amount. It might well be argued, of course, that a person in receipt of a disability pension is put to additional expense and so on, and that some allowance should be made for that. If on those grounds a concession is to be made to a civilian pensioner who draws a disability pension for service in the Forces, it ought equally to apply in respect of a disability pension granted under the civilian injuries scheme, for example, or to an injured civil servant under an injury Warrant. I cannot help thinking that the Committee will, on consideration, agree that we must be satisfied with the £52 which is excluded, and accept the position as it stands. I


am afraid, therefore, I am not able to accept my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment.

Sir I. Fraser: It is a very great disappointment that the Treasury can make no concession in this matter, or even give me an assurance I had hoped for. I think the hon. 1Mernlber for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Suller), with his usual skill, has pointed out a flaw in the Bill which I half-suspected but did not fully see. I had hoped that the Schedule went a long way towards meeting the point I have argued. It now seems quite clear to me that the disability pension in certain cases is to come in for assessing the percentage of increase that a civil servant is to receive, but is not to be disregarded in a great many other cases.
I find the argument that the Financial Secretary used very unconvincing. He said that it would be difficult to do this without bringing in other categories, and so on: In the Determination of Needs Act, 1934, the first pound a week of a disability pension was disregarded in connection with measures of Public Assistance. The same Act said that the first pound a week of Workmen's Compensation and the first 7s. 6d. of Health Insurance should be disregarded. Why were these disregards made? Bear in mind that they were made in a Measure dealing with hardship and need. The Financial Secretary says it is inconsistent with a Bill based upon hardship to have disregards, but he has made a disregard himself of £52.

Mr. Assheton: I said, to have an unlimited disregard.

Sir I. Fraser: That is the theory, that it does not matter very much if it is only a little one. I do not see how that argument can be sustained. My right hon. Friend says that, because this Measure is based on hardship, you must not have disregards—or perhaps he says that you must not have very many disregards or very great disregards. Take the cases of two men, one of whom has lost both his legs, while the other has not. In measuring their situations, you cannot disregard the fact that one has lost his legs, while the other has not. Each gets £150 a year. But the man without legs needs more. The State gave him his pension partly because he had lost his legs, and partly in order that he should not starve. In go far

as the State gives it to him as compensation for what he has lost, he ought not to be prevented from receiving an increase which all his fellows get, solely because he happens to be receiving compensation of another kind for a physical loss. The Government meet this matter for a great many under the Bill, but they do not do so for others. We must ask for some more convincing explanation than that which we have had.

Sir Percy Harris: I would like to support the very eloquent plea we have just heard. A man gets a disability pension for the loss of a leg or of an arm because he is handicapped in life. That handicap is going to continue, and, as has been said, it is going to increase with old age. The man without legs is going to be put to the expense of hiring taxis, for instance, because he cannot get about so well as other people. The financial assistance given by the State to help a man to get over the disability which has been caused by service to the State should not prevent him from enjoying the advantages of this Bill. This is a matter of common sense, not merely of sentiment; and I suggest that. if possible, the Government should reconsider their decision.

Mr. Mannin£hatn-Bulter: I feel very dissatisfied with the Financial Secretary's reply. We are creating a very serious anomaly. I thought that the omission was by accident, but apparently it is quite deliberate. Under Clause 2, the disability pension is entirely disregarded. That means, as I understand, that a person whose pension exceeds £600 a year will not have his disability pension taken into account. That is to say, the highest-rated pensioner will be able to disregard any disability pension he is receiving, in determining whether he gets an increase under this Bill. That seems to be the clear effect of Clause 2, with the Schedule. But when you consider cases coming within Clause r, you find that there is no disregard for disability pensions. The two systems seem entirely contradictory, and I see no logic in it. I do not follow the observations which have been made about not allowing people to have an unlimited disregard, because the amounts of disability pensions are clearly laid down. It does not seem to me that a disability pension can be regarded as ordinary income. It is deferred compen-


sation. A lump-sum award for injuries made in the Courts is not subject to taxation; and if, under Clause 2, you do not take into account such pensions, I cannot see any reason for bringing them into account under Clause 1.

Lady Apsley: This is such an important point that I would very strongly support the plea made to the Financial Secretary by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) and my hon Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller). We should see that the dice are not loaded against disabled people. This anomaly which has been discovered completely stultifies the whole of the Bill, as it stands. I hope that the Financial Secretary will see his way to accept the Amendment which has been so ably proposed.

Sir W. Allen: I can see the difficulty in which the Financial Secretary find himself; he has no power to accept such an Amendment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in his place now, we might appeal to him. I would like the Financial Secretary to put the whole matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, and then perhaps, in another place, the Government may find an opportunity to accept the Amendment, to some extent. [Interruption.] It is not a question of Privilege. When the Government wish to amend a Bill, they can do it in another place.

Mr. Pethiek-Lawrence: I have listened to the whole discussion on this Amendment, and I am bound to tell the Financial Secretary that the defence which he put up did not convince me; and, from what I have heard, I do not feel that he has carried the Committee. Undoubtedly, where the question of these disabilities arises, the Committee is deeply moved. We are so greatly indebted to the men who risk their lives and limbs in these battles that when they are awarded disability pensions, we consider it very hard if those pensions prevent them from getting what they would get if those disability pensions did not exist. Undoubtedly, there is cdnsideraible feeling in the Committee. I appreciate, as the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) does, that it is very difficult for the Financial Secretary to give any concession without the

immediate presence and support of his chief. Therefore, I hope that he will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come in before the Debate on this Amendment is concluded, so that he may be apprised of the feeling of the Committee. If it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to attend, perhaps the Financial Secretary would be able to give an undertaking without committing himself, that his right hon. Friend will consider the matter before the Report stage. Then, I think the Government might have the Clause as it stands; but it is important that the Financial. Secretary should give some undertaking.

Mr. Pickthorn: Before the Financial Secretary replies, I should like to ask for guidance on questions arising out of the last two speeches addressed to the Committee. The first question is this. Should we not clearly be exposed to surprises if we accepted the advice given from below the Gangway, the suggestion that this might be put right in another place by Government Amendments; might not a matter of Privilege arise? I think it will make some difference to some Members of the Committee whether or not they can leave the thing as it stands, if they can be told that. Secondly, there is the point put by 'my right hon. Friend opposite, about the Report stage. I do not in the least wish to stand in the way of this Bill, or of the Financial Secretary; but can we be told when the Report stage is going to be? Can we be sure that there is to be any effective Report stage?

Sir I. Fraser: Why need the Report stage be to-day? There is plenty of business on the Paper.

Mr. Assheton: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) for his sage advice, and also to other 'Members of the Committee. I am naturally anxious to do all I can to meet the wishes of the Committee, but, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I cannot give way. But I may say this. The Report stage is intended to follow immediately after the Committee stage. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be here for the Report stage, and I will give this undertaking to the Committee. If my right hon. Friend is not here, we will not take


the Report stage to-day. In view of that assurance, and without in any way diminishing the strength of the views which I previously expressed, I ask the Committee to be good enough to allow my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, to leave out paragraph (b).
The present Sub-section provides that the income of a pensioner shall be deemed to include the income of the husband or wife of the pensioner. The Debate that has just taken place has revealed one of the ungenerous and mean aspects of this Bill, and this Clause reveals another of its mean and ungenerous aspects. If I am a pensioner whose pension has been reduced to one-half of its value, by reason of the increase in the cost of living, I am entitled to have my claim for an increase considered, without the slightest regard to whether my wife has an income or whether she has not. The whole emphasis of this Bill is on finding every conceivable excuse to deny the payment of the small benefits which the Bill provides, and it is only another illustration—one of many—of the fact that the emphasis of the Bill is absolutely wrong, mean and unjust. I hope we shall insist that, if we are to have a means test at all, and if we are to have ceilings at all, they should be ceilings and means tests related to the pensioner, and not to the pensioner plus his wife or anybody else that Treasury meanness can drag in.

Mr. Assheton: The effect of this Amendment is to delete the provision that, in calculating the income of a married pensioner, the income of the husband and wife shall be aggregated together. The provision, to which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Browny takes objection, is one which has appeared in earlier Pensions Increases Acts and is a perfectly normal feature of any statutory provision which provides for assistance calculated in relation to income. I can quite understand that the Committee might have taken objection, if it had been provided that the income of other persons in a household should be taken into account for the purpose of assessing a pensioner's total resources, but that is expressly prohibited by the wording of Clause 3, Sub-

section (1) (b). On the other hand, I cannot help thinking that the Committee will agree that it is reasonable, if a husband and wife jointly have an income of £x a year, that that figure, and not the figure actually falling to husband or wife, should be taken into account in deciding whether or not the pensioner qualifies for increase under the hardship scheme. I have tried to make it clear to the Cornmittee on more than one occasion that this scheme is directed to hardship. All sorts of other schemes might have been introduced, and the Chancellor made it clear in his Second Reading speech, and has done so since, that this scheme relates to hardship, and it is for that reason that the Bill has been introduced. In view of that, it does seem to me that the Committee would not think it unreasonable for the income of husband and wife to be aggregated for this purpose, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Assheton: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at end, to insert:
(4) In calculating, for the purposes of the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, the means of any pensioner or the amount of any pension, any increase for which provision is made by this Act shall be disregarded; and where the amount of any pension, has been increased under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, or by or under any other enactment, the increase for which provision is made by this Act shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section, be calculated upon the amount of the pension as so increased.
This Amendment, which looks rather complicated, is intended to make it clear that the increases to be made under the Bill are cumulative to any other increases which may be payable to the pensioner. Sub-section (4) of Clause 8 was intended to achieve this purpose, but it is doubtful, I am told, whether the Sub-section is sufficiently comprehensive. Under the Pensions Increases Acts of 1920 and 1924, certain pensions which became payable before the 16th August, 1920, may be increased by an amount which varies according to the pensioner's means. Increases could be given where it was necessary to bring the income of an unmarried person up to £150 and that of a married person to £200 a year. If further increases were regarded as part of the means of the pensioner, the two increases might cancel each other out, and the proposed new Sub-section, therefore, pro-


vides two things: (a) that the increase shall be cumulative and (b) that any inccease payable under the Bill should not be regarded as means for the purposes of the Acts of 1920 and 1924.
The words "subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section" are inserted as a precautionary measure. They cannot affect any pension which falls to be increased under the Acts of 1920 or 1924 because that pension must necessarily have become payable before the 16th August, 1920, and cannot have been affected by the payment of war bonus since 3rd September, 1939. But it is just possible—and this is why it is inserted in the Bill—ithat pensions payable under some local scheme may have been increased under local legislation, and, in that case, increases under this Bill will be calculated upon the amount of pension so increased, subject to one qualification, that, if the pension has also been increased by reason of a war bonus paid since 3rd September, 1939, the increase under the Bill mutt, in accordance with Sub-section (2), be calculated as if the war bonus has not been payable. I hope the Committee will appreciate that this Amendment is designed to make certain of what, I feel sure, all'hon. Members of the Committee would wish to see inserted in the Bill.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I conceive that it is possible that this additional Clause may conceal a benevolent objective. I do not know what this Clause means at all, and I doubt very much whether any other hon. Member understands it either. I want to try to find out what its effect is. Let me take, first of all, a retired Civil Service pensioner who is also an old age pensioner, and is also receiving a supplementary benefit on a non-covenanted basis. I take a pensioner with a small pension of 3s. or 4s. a week, with the old age pension, who is receiving a supplementary grant under legislation debated not long ago by this House. What happens to him? The whole effect of the increase given under this Bill may be to make him ineligible for supplementary benefit and old age pension, and I do not know what the answer to that is. It appears that the Government may be taking away with one hand what this House gives with the other. We ought to know clearly what the answer is, but I cannot divine it. My second question is this. In the calculation

of the ceiling for the purpose of satisfying the conditions of this Bill, will a retired civil servant, an Army officer or anybody else, who is getting an old age pension, have that old age pension regarded as income for the purpose of satisfying the tests,of this Bill? If the answer is "Yes," what we are really doing is to take away with one hand what we have given with the other. I have taken two simple cases to which it ought to be possible to give a clear reply, and I would be very grateful if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enlighten us.

Sir J. Anderson: I confess at once that I am at a disadvantage because I have not heard the whole of the discussion, but I will do my best to answer the two points which have just been put to me. I gather that my hon. Friend wants to know what would be the position of a Civil Service pensioner, who is also an old age pensioner, who might be an applicant for a supplementary Pension—[Interruption]. Let me put it my own way.

Mr. Brown: That is not the right way.

Sir J. Anderson: The whole point is that grants given by way of supplementary pensions are at the discretion of the Assistance Board; there is nothing final or permanent about it, and it is made in consideration of the income of the applicant. Therefore, the reply I ventured to make to the point put by my hon. Friend was perfectly reasonable. What the Assistance Board will do will be to look at the resources of the applicant. These things are reviewed at intervals. If you can imagine a pensioner under this Bill who is also an old age pensioner, and who has received an increase under this Bill, going to the Assistance Board for supplementation, I really do not see that any criticism whatever could be levelled at this particular provision. Unless the Civil Service pension and the old age pension, plus any addition that could be granted under this Bill, took the pensioner to a fairly high level, no question could arise and there would be no point whatever of criticism on the score indicated by my hon. Friend. The second point put—

Mr. Brown: On the first point, before we get to the second, I want to tell the Chancellor what he should know, that there are literally scores of thousands of pensioners, of ex-civil servants and probably ex-soldiers, who have half-a-crown


or five shillings a week, and even where a man is getting his Civil Service pension and the old age pension on top of it, he is still eligible for a grant of supplementary pension before he reaches the ceiling under that particular scheme. If we give him another 9d. a week under this wretched Bill, or whatever his due percentage on a few shillings a week is, is that amount to be deducted from the supplementary amount with the result that the man is worse off than he was before?

Sir J. Anderson: That was the point that I was answering.

Mr. Brown: What is the answer? "Yes" or "No"?

Sir J. Anderson: It is treated as if it were part of the pension, and the Board will deal with it as if the pension, plus the additional pension under this Bill, had been granted in the first instance. The point seems to be entirely without substance.

Mr. Brown: It the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is without substance, then we are not talking the same language. Under the hypothetical cases I have quoted, the result of giving an increase under the Bill will be to cause a reduction in the supplementary grant, and if it does so that makes nonsense of the Bill. I want something put into the Bill to make it plain that the local assistance board is not entitled to regard the taking away of half-a-crown because of its having been received somewhere else.

Sir J. Anderson: If that is what my hon. Friend is aiming at, I cannot conceive of anything more preposterous. He might as' well suggest that the whole pension should be left out by the Assistance Board. I should not think that it was within the scope of this Bill to lay down conditions which the Assistance Board are to apply in dealing with the grants which they administer. I should have thought that it was quite out of the question.

Mr. Brown: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is out of the question, again we are not thinking in the same language. He has not thought it "improper," or "out of the question" to introduce disqualification after disqualification in this Bill or to bar men out who ask for a grant. So that what is

given with one hand is taken away with the other. If the Chancellor thinks that that is "improper" and "out of the question" I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Chancellor is "improper" and "out of the question." May I have an answer to the second question? [Interruption.] On a point of Order. I put two questions to the Chancellor, and he was about to answer the second question when he went off into a discussion on the first answer and did not reach the second question.

The Chairman: What is the hon. Member's point of Order?

Mr. Brown: The point of Order is, what is the reply to my question?

The Chairman: The Chancellor is entitled to reply or not as he thinks fit. If he does not speak, it is for me to put the Question.

Sir J. Anderson: I do not wish to be discourteous, whatever the attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) may be. I am afraid that I have not fully grasped the difference between the second question of the hon. Member and his first question. If he would care to repeat his second question in terms to make it clear how it differs from the first question, I will deal with it.

Mr. Brown: Suppose you have an Army officer, or a civil servant, getting an old age pension. Is that to be treated as income for the purpose of satisfying tests under this Bill—the means test, etc.?

Sir J. Anderson: I can readily answer that question. I thought that, in providing for a disregard up to £52 a year of that income, I was acting generously, introducing an entirely new principle by way of concession and sweeping away difficulties of that kind, I think it very unlikely that an old age pension received in addition to a Service pension by a retired civil servant or officer would be found to be greatly in excess of the disregard of £52.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 2o, after "for," insert "any of."

In line 23, leave out from "pensioner," to end of line 24, and insert:
and 'the manner in which, in any such case, the pension granted to the husband or wife


of the pensioner is to be calculated for any such purpose as aforesaid."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out "Subsection (1)," and to insert "Sub-sections (1) and (4)."
Perhaps it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss this Amendment and the two following Amendments on the Order Paper which also stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn).
The purpose of the Amendment, as I am sure the Committee are aware, is to provide that the regulations made under this Bill under Sub-section (4), paragraphs (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall be subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House. The Committee will see that it is by Subsection (4) of Clause 3 that power is given to the Treasury to make Regulations and, in my view, it is a very wide power indeed. When one looks at Subsection (5), one sees that only certain of those regulations are subject to any sort of approval by this House. It is only regulations under Sub-section (1) of that Clause which are apparently coming before the House at all by way of negative resolution. What puzzles me is that under Sub-section (1) no power is given to the Treasury to make regulations. All that Sub-section (1) provides is that certain regulations shall include regulations providing two specific things. Coming back to Sub-section (4), one sees that the Treasury, by regulations, may prescribe the manner in which claims are to be made, the procedure to be followed not only in considering but in determining any such claim. Therefore the Treasury are going to say to a particular body, "This is what you have got to do, and this is how you have got to do it," and without any control from this House at all. That seems to me to be quite contrary to the real effect of Clause A person counting on an increase of pension, would see at the beginning of that Clause:
Subject to the provisions of this Section a pension specified in the First Schedule …may,… be increased by the pension authority by an amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act.
That person, who is reading this Bill to see if he gets an increase of pension, will

not appreciate that it does not depend upon that at all. What it will depend upon is, what regulations may have been made by the Treasury as to the manner and procedure which is to be followed in considering and determining any such claim. Then if you go on to consider paragraph (b), you will see that the Treasury, again by regulations, may prescribe the evidence required for the purpose of determining whether a pension may be increased in accordance with the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill. The Treasury, going a stage further, are not only going to show the authority how it is to act, but what evidence it must receive, and how much evidence it must receive, before it increases the pension. And all that without any control from this House at all.
Then, if we go on to paragraph (d), we find they are going further to define when a husband and wife who are still married, are to be treated as unmarried. It seems to me that that is a matter of which the House should have some cognisance. We may get all sorts of anomalies arising there requiring another Act of Parliament to correct them. Then, when one comes to (e), one finds it gives the Treasury, in my view, very wide and entirely unnecessary powers in providing that,
in relation to any class of pensions specified in the regulations, all or any of the functions of the pension authority under this Act shall be performed on behalf of the pension authority by such other authority as may be specified.
So that the Treasury, without any control from us, can say to Tom, Dick and Harry, "You are the people who are to decide whether or not these people come within the provisions of the Act of Parliament, to decide whether these are people who Parliament has decided shall have an increase of pensions." In my view it is desirable that these regulations should come to this House in some form or other for this House to consider. This House should at least have power to annul regulations. I think the powers are so wide that there ought to be an affirmative regulation with regard to them.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope not to be very long, but I do not apologise for attempting some slight elaboration of this group of Amendments. I should like to begin by expressing my regret that the Amend-


ment was not put down sooner, and that was my fault by a series of accidents. I quite see that it is difficult for Ministers to be confronted with Amendments of this seriousness at rather short notice. I think that this group of Amendments, in a sense, is the most important thing about this Bill because, although it may not seem so immediately practical as questions of percentages and ceilings, it does raise a very large general constitutional question.
It is quite true that this Bill deals in the main, and therefore this Clause deals wholly, with a comparatively narrow point—how much additional pension, on grounds of hardship, shall be given to certain classes of pensioners and, in that sense, the delegation of legislative power which is contained in this Clause is not so wide a delegation as has been the delegation in many Statutes passed by this Parliament. But within the latitude and longitude of the structure of this Bill, the sub-legislative power being here granted is, I think, wider in same respects than has ever happened before. I notice two or three things about it. One is that the principal beneficiaries are civil servants, are bureaucrats. Although I would not in the least wish to impute any bias or wrong motive to them or infer any failure of their critical powers when themselves or their ex-colleagues are concerned, yet if it were any other class of men, that would certainly be regarded as a reason for scrutinising this power with particular closeness.
Secondly, this is of all Ministers the Minister whom it is most difficult for this House to keep in control in what might be called Parliament's general day-to-day business of making a market in the reputation of Ministers. We are often told that the proper method of control by this House over delegated legislation is by making clear its dissatisfaction with the Home Secretary, or whoever it may be, that that is the right sort of control, and not by means of trying to amend Bills as they are passing through this House. That argument is weaker with regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than in any other case, because the main function of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a function of day-to-day administration. He is not thought of in that light by the House, or by the country, and it is almost unthinkable that you could have a Chancellor of the Exchequer being forced to

resign on some administrative point of this sort.
There is a third reason why this seems to me to be a particularly important instance of the general principle that this House ought not to part with sub-legislative powers except after convincing argument. Normally, we are told, when these powers are asked for by Ministers, that there is going to be an immense mass of factors to be considered in the making of these regulations, that those factors are going to be changing, that we cannot possibly now foresee what sort of subjects we shall need to regulate, nor can we now see how often we shall want to amend those regulations. That argument is one which I think my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will admit does not apply, to this Bill. What are the matters about which the Treasury is to make regulations? The Treasury is to make regulations prescribing all the procedure for determining these claims, the sort of evidence to be required, the conditions in which a married couple are to be treated as, financially speaking, not married, and then there is the wide power for delegating the authority generally to somebody else. Although I am open to correction about the technical meaning of the word "authority," the person to whom things can be delegated is not even necessarily, I think, a public authority at all. As far as I can see, they might delegate to a sub-committee of the T.U.C. or the F.B.I.
I would submit to the Committee—and I would ask the Financial Secretary to correct the impression if I am mistaken—that almost all of these things, if not quite all, are things about which almost all, if not quite all, the factors are already known. I do not quite see why there should be any sub-legislative power granted' in this Bill at all. It may have been impossible for a Schedule to have been put into this Bill providing the regulations, but at the very least it is fair to say that this sub-legislation will be of a more predictable kind than sub-legislation generally is. This is the occasion which has been chosen for removing this sub-legislation wholly from the control of the House of Commons. Under Sub-section (1) we have some control by negative procedure but under Sub-section (4), unless these Amendments are carried, the House of Commons has no control whatever over the exercise of this legislative faculty by


the Treasury. If I am not out of Order in referring to a subsequent Clause, it seems to me that some control is given there, where the class of beneficiaries is to be extended by Order in Council. If I may say. so without impertinence, that is obviously proper. But, on the other hand, from an ordinary House of Commons point of view of the control of back benchers over Ministers, it is less important in that Clause than it is under Clause 3, because you may be quite sure that where Ministers are anxious by Order in Council to bring a new set of persons under the benefits of the Act, there would be members who would be briefed and informed upon that, whereas you can almost be sure that very few would be fully briefed or informed on Sub-section (4) (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) until it was too late. I beg the Committee to consider—although this may seem to some a constitutional pedantry—whether this is not really a Bill in which the House of Commons should exercise even more care than usual and exercise its right at this stage to see that all legislation is with its authority and by its consent.

Sir J. Anderson: The matters which have been raised to-day in regard to the problem of control over subordinate legislation, really involve important general considerations which, I should have thought, whould have been best dealt with apart from the provisions of this Bill, or any other Bill of a similar nature. There was the same kind of question on the Education Bill the other day. I think hon. Members are aware that it is the hope of the Government that an opportunity may be found at a fairly early date to discuss the whole of this very important question, which goes to the root of our procedure and may have a very important bearing on the capacity' of Parliament to deal with the legislative programme that lies ahead. This Amendment—and the subsequent Amendments—has, I think, only just appeared on the Order Paper. I certainly have not had adequate time to consider what may be involved and I would be very sorry to have to give a definite answer on the point now. I would prefer, if the Committee would agree, that we should break off our proceedings at this point, because there is other Business to be transacted, and that we should take the matter up at the next opportunity when I should hope that we

should be able to complete the Committee Stage and perhaps the other stages of the Bill.
The course I am suggesting, if it commends itself to Members, is this: A very important question has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) who, I know, would wish the Government to give full consideration to his proposal in the light of the speeches that have been made today on this subject. I, unhappily, for reasons which I could not control, was not able to hear those speeches and I would like to consider the whole matter. Quite frankly, if I am not out of Order in saying so, I do see very considerable difficulty because I think there are other categories, for instance, persons in receipt of Civil Defence pensions, in receipt of compensation for injuries suffered by enemy attack and in receipt of workmen's compensation allowances, which ought to be considered at the same time. Personally, I thought that the disregard of £52 would have covered all that. However, if we do as I have suggested, break off now by reporting Progress, that will give me the opportunity, which I should like to have, of considering all these matters very fully.
Ordered: "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." [Sir J. Anderson.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill looks rather complicated and technical. It deals with a comparatively small number of His Majesty's subjects, that is to say, regular police and firemen who have joined the Fighting Services or who have been directed into industry and who have subsequently, while so serving, encountered disability or death. It may assist the House if I remind them of the main object of the principal Act, which is the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, which this Bill amends. It was to confer in respect of men who joined the Armed Forces, and who were injured


or killed, benefits similar to those which would have been conferred if they had been injured or killed while serving as police or firemen. I should explain that the police and fire services pensions schemes provide higher scale pensions for men retired or killed as a result of injuries received while on duty as compared with the scales for retirement or death arising through ill-health or other causes, and that the 1939 Act enables police authorities, in cases of war casualties, to increase pensions to the appropriate amount under those higher scales after taking into account any war pension awarded by the Ministry of Pensions.
The principles embodied in the Act have since been extended by Defence Regulation 60DA so as to apply also to police or firemen who have been transferred to civilian war work of national importance. Experience of the working of the Act, which was passed before any police or firemen had gone to the war service, showed that it does not cover certain contingencies to which in equity it ought to apply. This Bill does not, however, modify the principles of the Act of 1939. It has been designed mainly to deal with difficulties which have already arisen and which have prevented police authorities from giving to the men or their widows the generous treatment which they deserve and which the 1939 Act intended that they should receive. We have, naturally, also attempted to deal with any matters which might cause difficulties or produce anomalies in the future as far as these can be foreseen. The number of claims arising from the death or disablement of police or firemen in the Armed Forces has hitherto not been great in relation to the considerable numbers of police and firemen who have been released for war service, but we must anticipate an increase in casualties as our offensive operations progress, and this makes it all the more desirable to clear up now the difficulties and anomalies to which I have referred.
The provisions of the Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum which goes with it. The more important Clauses, the first three, provide for the payment of the appropriate benefits in cases where death or disablement was due to causes arising prior to the war service. They provide also for the payment of the appropriate pensions to the widow of a man who has less than five years' service, who is at present

only entitled to a gratuity. They bring within the scope of the Act cases of men who die or become incapacitated as the result of their war service after rejoining as constables or firemen and they cover the case where death or disability results from an accident whilst on war service and not only, as in the principal Act, men dying from wounds or disease. Clause 2 provides for the necessary evidence to be obtained by the pension authority for making a grant under the principal Act, and there is an important provision in Sub-section (3) for an appeal to a medical referee where the police authority has refused to grant a pension or gratuity on the ground that the man is not prevented by infirmity from rejoining as a constable or fireman. Clause 3 lays down rules for determining the date of death of men who are reported as dead or missing. I do not think that at this stage need go through the remaining Clauses in detail. There may be points which hon. Members wish to put, and, if so, or my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with them either now or on the Committee stage.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. Pym.]

POLICE AND FIREMEN (WAR SERVICE) [Money]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

Resolved:
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the Police and Firemen (War Service) Act, 1939, and in connection therewith, to amend the Fire Services (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1941, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the expenses authorised by the said Act of 1941 to be so paid, which is attributable to any extension by the first mentioned Act of the power under the said Act of 1941 (as extended by any Defence Regulations, whenever made) to make regulations for the preservation of the pension rights of persons transferred to or joining the National Fire Service and similar matters, so as to include power to apply, whether or not retrospectively, the provisions of the first mentioned Act (including those provisions as extended by any Defence Regulation made by virtue of that Act), with or without modification, as if the rights and obligations thereby conferred and imposed had been conferred and imposed


before the establishment of the National Fire Service."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Peake.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

INDIA (FAILURE OF CONSTITU TIONAL MACHINERY)

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I beg to move,
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 15th February, 1941 copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively.
I understand that there is to be a full day given to the discussion of Indian policy, which will naturally cover not only political issues but the whole field of administrative and economic policy, and therefore I do not suppose that the House will expect me At this late hour to do more in connection with these Resolutions for the continuation of Section 93 in certain Indian Provinces than explain briefly their immediate purport and necessity. The Act of 1935 provided in Section 93 that, if the Governor of a Province found that Parliamentary government in accordance with the provisions of the Act could not be carried on, he was empowered by proclamation to announce that he was himself, in his own discretion, taking over any or all the functions of government. That situation arose in October, 1939, when the so-called "high command" of the Congress Party ordered Congress Ministries in eight Indian Provinces to resign their functions, in order in part to embarrass the general conduct of the Government of India, and also in order to make it clear that they would dissociate themselves from any responsibility for contributing to or co-operating in the conduct of the war. Those proclamations were valid only for six months unless confirmed and continued by Parliament for 12 months at a time.
Originally there was a limit of three years for the continuation of the proclamations but, in view of the war situation, Parliament in 1942 decided that they could be continued from year to year by Parliament so long as the war period lasted. These Resolutions affect only five out of the 11 Provinces of British India. Originally, seven Provinces were adminis-

tered by Governors under Section 93, but in the course of the war, first of all the Province of Orissa, and, during the last 12 months, the North-West Frontier Province, have found it possible to provide self-governing Ministries supported by adequate majorities in their Legislatures. So that to-day a majority of the Provinces of India are enjoying within the very wide sphere of their authority democratic responsible Parliamentary self-government. That affects a population of something like 110,000,000, or well over one-third of the population of British India. In those Provinces a very wide field of legislative and executive authority, covering most of the subjects which occupy the attention of this House in time of peace, fall entirely within the scope of Ministers subject to Parliamentary responsibility. Those same Governments have actively co-operated in the war effort in support of the central Government. They have equally cooperated, and very effectively, in the maintenance of law and order. It is essential, I think, for the House to remember that when the very grave disturbances, which were instigated by Congress, occurred in the autumn of 1942, they were dealt with effectively in these Provinces, not by the Central Government of India, but by the Provincial authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman really state that these regrettable disturbances were actually instigated by Congress?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, most certainly. The whole campaign for creating mass sabotage and for paralysing, to use the words of the resolution of 8th August, the activities of the Government of India, was most certainly one for which Congress leaders were responsible. It was the Governments that enjoyed responsible self-government which dealt with those disturbances.

Mr. Cove (Aheravon): The right hon. Gentleman seems to be opening a very wide Debate. I do not know whether we shall be allowed to follow him.

Mr. Amery: If there are any special points raised I may perhaps, with the leave of the House, reply to them afterwards. I was dwelling on the fact that these Motions, which we all regret, apply in fact only to a minority of the Provinces


of British India. In the majority of Provinces the traditions and experience of self-government have been continued and developed during these difficult war years, and that is something which it is well worth bearing in mind. It is, of course, a matter of regret to all of us that the same opportunities for developing the traditions and experience of self-government have been denied to the other Provinces, but not by the responsibility of His Majesty's Government or of the Central Government of India or of the Governments of the Provincies concerned. When parliamentary government was stopped in those Provinces by the order of the Congress high command, there was no kind of deadlock or difficulty within those Parliaments or in the relation of ministries to Governors. The ministers concerned were, in fact, to the best of my information, reluctant to have to resign their offices in obedience to orders from without.
I do not think that anybody can therefore describe what has happened and the action of the Congress Party as a vindication of democracy. On the contrary, it seemed to me to have been a clear assertion of the totalitarian principle against democracy in the field of provincial government. Since then there has been no change in the political situation so far as that is concerned. Every opportunity during the next three years was given to Congress leaders to come to some compromise or understanding, both with the Government and, what is no less important, with other important elements in India, but none of those opportunities were taken advantage of. I need only mention the declaration which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Aircraft Production took to India two years ago. That declaration, if accepted, would automatically have involved the resumption of Parliamentary self-government in all the Provinces. Unfortunately, the Congress leaders did not see their way to accept those very generous proposals which, I may add, still stand in what the Prime Minister described as their full scope and integrity. They are, as the Viceroy reminded the Assembly a few weeks ago, an essential part of the policy of His Majesty's Government. There has been no change in that situation and there is nothing that the Congress leaders have done that would suggest a desire or disposition for a change. ' It is obvious that those who consistently take up that atti-

tude, an attitude which definitely led to those grave, tragic disturbances in the summer of 1942, which might very well have endangered the whole fate of India in the presence of imminent Japanese invasion—

Mr. Cove: On a point of Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is an issue of immense importance both to this country and the Empire, and the right hon. Gentleman is making very wide and, from some points of view, very contentious statements. To raise these issues at this time of day seems to me to be curtailing the opportunities of the House to discuss them as they should be discussed. To range over the whole issues as the right hon. Gentleman is doing is derogatory bath to the issues which are at stake and to the power and influence of this House.

Mr. Speaker: We should, if possible, bring the Debate back to the Motions, and the general issues should be held over to the later Debate. We cannot discuss the general situation of India now.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether it will be possible to comment, at least briefly, on some of the statements already made?

Mr. Speaker: Of course that must be so, because the statements have been made, but I hope that hon. Members will not comment at length.

Mr. Graham White: It would be valuable if we could come to an understanding on this point. My right hon. Friend began by saying that there would be an opportunity for a fuller discussion. If it is the intention to embark on a full discussion at this stage I should be inclined to raise a protest because it would be an unseemly thing to do. We have given a considerable portion of Parliamentary time to-day to the discussion of Kingston-upon-Hull, which has a population of about 300,000. We are now going to discuss affairs which concern a population of 120,000,000.I think that my right hon. Friend was following a wise course when he said that we would have a full day later to discuss India, and I suggest that now we should confine our discussion to the proposed Orders.

Mr. Amery: I certainly would not wish to introduce, in presenting these Resolutions, anything which was irrelevant. I


thought it was necessary to remind the House that the situation which led to the Proclamations originally has not altered. The difficulties in the way of resumption of self-government in the Provinces still continue. It has always been not a matter only of good will on the part of the Governors concerned, but a matter of constitutional duty and obligation on their part that if at any time it should appear to a Governor that there were prospects of sufficient Parliamentary support for a stable Ministry in any Province, it would be his duty to summon those who were capable of forming a Ministry, and of bringing back the resumption of Parliamentary government. That situation has, unfortunately, not arisen. Therefore, very reluctantly, we are compelled for another 12 months, or at any rate for the time being, to ask for the prolongation of these Resolutions. I think that is all I need say. I did not mean really to raise anything in a controversial spirit just now. I hope, therefore, on the understanding that there is to be a full Debate for all constitutional issues to come before the House, that we can get these Resolutions through without undue delay.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I must say that I think the Government and the right hon. Gentleman have handled this matter in about the worst possible way I can imagine. First, they realise that this is a very large and fundamental issue that ought to have a proper discussion. They try to arrange for a Debate at the tail-end of a day when there has been a great deal of other business and we cannot have a proper discussion. Having done that, and got the unwilling consent of a number of Members to curtail their speeches, the right hon. Gentleman gets up and makes one of the most provocative speeches on the Indian situation to which I have ever had the misfortune to listen.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Nonsense.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: That may be the hon. Member's view, but that is not my view. We have had to forgo our right to have a discussion, because this matter was not to be put forward in a controversial way. If the right hon. Gentleman did not realise that he was being controversial, it convinces me that

he is totally unfit for the office which he holds in the Government. I say that after very careful.consideration. The fact that he does not realise that his remarks are contraversial, and are likely to arouse fierce feeling in India, only proves that he does not understand the psychological reactions which lie behind the tragedy which is going on at the present time.
In response to your request, Mr. Speaker, and because of the obvious feeling on the part of other Members, I will refrain from making the remarks I had intended to make on this matter. I can see the disadvantage, in a thin House, of raising this matter to the status to which it aught to be raised. The temperature which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced drags this matter much below the level of world importance, to which the India problem really belongs. Having said that, I think the best thing is to leave my proposals until another time, still disapproving entirely, as I believe a large number of people in this House and outside do, of the kind of frail mind which the right hon. Gentleman brings to this grave and very important issue.

Mr. Graham White: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that the discussion has taken a most unfortunate turn, but these are merely the symptoms of the attitudes we have got into in this House for far too long regarding the India problem. It is a matter on which many of us feel very deeply. I hope that when we discuss this matter in a full Debate properly arranged, we shall be able to clear up much of the misunderstanding. The right hon. Gentleman was a little severe in his criticism. I remember an occasion when there appeared on the Order Paper two Questions, one about Provinces of India and the other about trees in Hyde Park. These things do come about, but the arrangement to-day was certainly unfortunate. I hope that what has happened here to-night will not be the overture for the discussion which is to take place when we have a full Debate, perhaps in the not very far distant future. I hope that we shall then make an effort to escape from the attitude of mind that usually limits our discussions and that we shall have more regard to the safety and the future of India.
There has never been a time in the history of India when there was greater


scope for all kinds of co-operation by all classes of the community than there will be when the war comes to an end. There has never been a time in the history of the earth when so many experiments in government have been made, as will then be in progress. There will be 12 Governments in Europe at least looking to us for guidance and I hope that some of them will look to us for assistance which we can provide. Do not let us think that the only solution of the Indian problem is in the continuing discussion of these disastrous barren and sterile topics. One was raised at the meeting of the Indian Liberal Federation the other day when reference was made to
the obvious determination of the British Government to do nothing to solve the deadlock during the war.
Whether such words fall from the mouths of people in this country or in India, they lead nowhere. We need a new outlook and a new spirit and I hope that we shall escape from these shadows of the past.

Mr. G. Nicholson: I cannot remain silent in face of remarks, which I can only characterise as astounding, which fell from the lips of the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). As he knows, I have the greatest personal esteem, and a great deal of political esteem, for him, and I feel, therefore, that he will regret the violent attack which he made upon my right hon. Friend. I challenge him now to tell me what was said by the Secretary of State which departed from the barest statement of fact.

Mr. Sloan: That is controversial.

Mr. Nicholson: He cannot answer.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On the contrary, I can certainly answer the hon. Member, but I do not think it is a suitable moment to make a second speech. The speech of the Secretary of State was based on attacking the Congress leaders. Is this helpful, at a time when the right hon. Gentleman knows that we are not to have a full Debate? I am bound to say that if the hon. Member thinks that it is a helpful and not a provocative attitude, I cannot agree with him.

Mr. Nicholson: I am again surprised at my right hon. Friend. Congress was not criticised by the Secretary of State for India, who, in the main, made a plain

statement of the actions of Congress. If that is an attack on Congress, Congress is responsible for that. If my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh had got up and said that it would have been wiser to pass these Resolutions "on the nod" and without explanation, I should not have contradicted him, but I understand that he announced that he would speak, so that rules that out. I feel extraordinarily angry at the violent words used by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh. He made a violent and bitter personal attack on the Secretary of State for India, than whom no man has given more thought to the problems of India, and than whom no man is better qualified to speak on them, than whom no man either in this House or in this country has more good will towards India. I protest most vehemently against the attack. I feel in such an extraordinary bad temper about it that I shall not say any more.

Mr. Sorensen: We have heard that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has made a violent personal attack on the Secretary of State for India. This has been followed by a comment on the part of the hon. Gentleman opposite that his anger is rising. If I follow suit and go still further, in the scale of temperature, the temperature of this House will become considerably hotter than in the country about which we are talking. I do not therefore propose to increase the temperature, but I must deal with one or two observations very briefly. I shall do so because of the further contentious statement made by the previous speaker. I am a non-contentious person myself, though that may sound strange to some, but at least I try to avoid contention as much as possible. The previous speaker does not seem to appreciate that if the Secretary of State for India makes a statement it does not mean that therefore his words are not provocative and contentious to some of us. The statement he made was both provocative and contentious to my mind. I do not want to break the general agreement to abbreviate our remarks, but when he says that Congress instigated the disturbances I entirely disagree. I would contend that, on the contrary, there is no evidence that that is so. The Secretary of State later, perhaps as an unconscious modification of his first statement, told us


that Congress was responsible. That certainly is a matter of opinion. To say "instigated", however, means that consciously and deliberately they made plans which resulted in those most unfortunate and tragic disturbances which involved the death of about a thousand Indians and from a dozen to twenty Englishmen, the flogging of nearly 1,000 Indians and the wounding of between 3,000 and 4,000. I mention that to show how contentious that statement really was.
I could mention other statements but I will not do so except to say that when he referred to the totalitarianism of the Indian Congress, in my view he was also flagrantly contentious although I know it is the contention in more than one quarter. I know also that is the sort of argument used about not only Congress but even the whole Nationalist movement. I do not interpret events in that way. The difference between myself and others is a sincere one. They have their interpretation and I have mine, but it is none the less contentious to put it forward, and even with a certain amount of complacency, and ask us to accept it as gospel truth. While we shall not enter into a long Debate on this matter for more reasons than one, we by no means accept the unfortunate preliminary statement of the Secretary of State for India.
I am very glad indeed that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh has preserved the dignity of the occasion by refraining from elaborating the discussion, but I must confess that at one time I was rather astonished at the way the Secretary of State was going, because of a certain understanding that so vast a subject should be left for another day when we could embark on the matter with dignity. He then proceeded, no doubt quite unconsciously, but with a revealing state of mind, to trail his coat in a most provocative fashion, so that I was tempted to jump on it and engage in the upset but I will follow the example of my right hon. Friend in front. The proposals now made for the continuation of these Proclamations are in themselves a tragic confession of failure. It is continuing a deadlock which cannot remain as it is. In some ways it is exhibition of a kind of paralysing complacency. Whatever we may think about the blame to be attached to Congress, the fact remains

that it is a shocking state of affairs that for the third time five Provinces of British India, including the most important Provinces of Madras and Bombay, are to accept what is virtually despotic government. They will have that despotic government at a time when we are still waging a prolonged and terrible war for the reverse principles, and also at a time when Japan threatens the Eastern part of India. I only wish there had been more signs than there have been up to now of the almost cosmic significance of the present situation.
The only other word I would say is that the sooner we move away from the standpoint of censorious judgment on those now detained in prisons and internment camps in India, and be realists, the better it will be for our future and the future of India. We may have our judgments regarding the Indian leaders. We may think them wise or unwise, but the worst crime that they have committed is that of being, according to their lights, supreme Indian patriots. Even non-Congress men have pleaded again and again for some little step to be taken at least to ease the atmosphere. They have pleaded for permission for contact between Congress leaders and non-Congress leaders. That has been refused. They have pleaded for the resumption of negotiations. Nothing has been done. Instead we have this proposal at this hour, in almost a perfunctory way, that we should accept the criticism and censure of the Indian leaders without giving them on the other hand a chance to answer back. Surely this is not typically British, or realist, or an appreciation of the gravity of the situation? I can only express the hope that when the full dress Debate does come along, the fact that some of us have said a few words will not preclude the possibility of our speaking on that occasion. I trust that in addition to the heat that has been engendered to-day a certain amount of light may illumine our darkness and help us to face up to the realities of the situation more than we are able unfortunately to do now.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I think there is one thing to which all the House will agree, that we all regret that a matter of such immense importance should have to come before the House in existing circumstances; we all must regret that. I am


sure the Secretary of State regrets it. I want to back up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) and express the hope, which I think is shared not in just one quarter of the House only, but very widely, that we may look away as far as possible from the past, and look towards the future and endeavour to get our fellow subjects in India to do the same, and try to find points on which we can agree instead of concentrating on the points on which we differ. I would from that point of view venture to emphasise that while some of us may have regretted very deeply some of the words which fell from the Secretary of State there were other words of his that meant a great deal for the future of India.
He spoke of having to introduce this Measure very reluctantly. That is not the act, nor are those the words, of a tyrant. If he wanted to impose an alien rule on a reluctant India, he would not introduce these provisions very reluctantly. He wants them to be unnecessary at the very earliest date; and I think he has made that perfectly clear. He said that not only was there good will on the part of the Government towards the reestablishment and the fuller establishment of democratic government in India, but that it was the duty of the Government to do what they could to get self-government realised at the earliest possible date. He has re-emphasised once again, on behalf of the Government, that the great offer that was made in the name of the Government, and on behalf of the Government, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Minister of Aircraft Production, still stands as an integral part of the policy of the Government of this country. That is a thing which we cannot emphasise too much. I hope that, while we all recognise that this is no time to have a full discussion on so immensely important a subject, we may pass this Motion to-day with great reluctance, but not without hope of a better future.

Mr. Amery: May I, with the permission of the House, just say that I would like to echo the appeal made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White), that, when we come to the full discussion of these matters, we should look not to what he called the threadbare events of the past, but to the

immense possibilities that the future may bring to India. If I did touch on controversial matters just now, I did not do so with any deliberate intention of arousing controversy, but because I felt it necessary to explain why these regrettable circumstances were caused. I have not got up to start a new controversy, but rather to direct our minds in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead directed them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Madras on 30th October, 5939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 55th February, 5943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively.—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bombay on 4th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 15th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the United Provinces on 3rd November, 1939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 1st December. 5939, and 12th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, 16th January, 1940, and 10th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of the Central Provinces and Berar on 10th November, 1939, and of his Proclamation varying the same issued on 2nd December, 1939, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, and 16th January, 1940, respectively.—[Mr. Amery.]

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by the Governor of Bihar on 3rd November, 5939, and of his Proclamations varying the same issued on 3rd December, 1939, and i3th February, 1943, copies of which were presented on 28th November, 1939, 16th January, 1940, and 10th March, 1943, respectively."—[Mr. Amery.]

BURMA (FAILURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY)

The Secretary of State for Burma (Mr. Amery): I beg to move,
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which was presented On 9th February, 1943.
I think that this Motion cannot possibly arouse any controversy, because it arises from the sheer necessity of the fact that the Government of Burma has to be carried on outside Burma in the main, owing to Japanese occupation, and that, therefore, neither a Parliament nor a Ministry responsible to Parliament is able to function.

Mr. G. Nicholson: I am going to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not postpone this Motion. I understand that the other Motions have to be got by 30th April, but that this Motion need not be got until 9th June. I ask him either to postpone the Motion, or to promise that during the course of this summer there will be an opportunity for a short Debate, at any rate, on Burma. I do so for several reasons. It is a thousand pities that Burma is always hung on to Indian affairs, as a sort of appendix of India. My right hon. Friend has spoken as Secretary of State for Burma: that is an entirely separate function. I think that Burma deserves a Debate to itself. We shall have to show Burma that we take Burmese matters into serious consideration. Burma deserves serious consideration for its own sake, and it also deserves serious consideration as being typical of a wide range of countries in South-East Asia and Indonesia which have been overrun by the Japanese. The problems which will face Burma after the war will be similar to the problems which will face the British Empire in many fields. I will not labour the point, but I think it is abundantly clear that Burma deserves a separate Debate. At the moment, it may be inconvenient to have a separate Debate; but I suggest that this Motion should be put off for some weeks, and that then we might have a Debate, devoted to Burma, for two or three hours at the end of a day, or that, alternatively, we should be promised a short Debate on the subject in June or July.

Mr. Sorensen: Certainly I welcome this indication of a change of content between

the two Proclamations, but I hope that, if there is to be a short Debate on Burma, it will not be carved out of a Debate on India.

Mr. G. Nicholson: That was just my point.

Mr. Sorensen: In that case, I will certainly endorse what the hon. Member has said. There does not seem to be the same objection to this Motion as to the others, since there is a difference in the circumstances. Although we are still there in India and the Provincial Ministries are not operating, the position in Burma is that we are not there at all. Therefore, there is a difference between the two sets of circumstances; and, for that reason, I support the request of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that, through the usual channels, a separate Debate on Burma might be arranged at an early date.

Mr. Amery: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the subject of Burma deserves more attention in this House than it has received, and that, together with the whole of South-East Asia, Burma becomes of ever-increasing importance as the war advances. I think that there would be difficulties about postponing this particular Motion, in view of the tremendous congestion of Business before Whitsuntide. So far as a desire for, at any rate, part of a day for a Debate on Burma is concerned, I am not in a position, of course, to give a promise, but if a sufficient number of Members made representations, my good will would certainly be associated with their request.

Mr. G. Nicholson: I would like to thank my right hon. Friend. I shall be quite content if I have staked out a claim for, at any rate, a short Debate on Burma, as a separate matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which was presented on 9th February, 1943,

GAS (SPECIAL ORDERS)

Resolved:
That the Draft of a Special Order propose.' to be made by the Minister of Fuel and


Power under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Cannock District Gas Company, Limited, which Draft was presented on 21st March, and published, be approved."—[Mr. Tom Smith.]

MINING SUBSIDENCE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Hr. Young.]

Mr. Daggar: I wish to raise an important subject and a very serious one to those living in the mining areas of this country. It is the question of mining subsidence, which is one big feature of these areas, and which requires no definition beyond a reference to the question of the damage due to subsidence both to public and private property. We have asked from time to time that this question should be placed under the consideration, not only of a Commission, but of other bodies, but, as is true of many others, no relief has been provided for those who suffer as the result of subsidence. Even to-day, on this subject, it is impossible to secure from the Government any undertaking or promise that it is proposed to deal with it effectively. We have heard much to-day about rebuilding bombed houses, and other premises, but nothing about repairing the damage due to subsidence
On 2nd March, I put down a Question to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and I was informed that the matter was being considered in consultation with other Departments. Well, consideration and consultation are two very pleasing words, but to me they appear to be the Government's substitute for Commissions, reports, inquiries and surveys. I sometimes think it would be very difficult to manufacture an excuse, or to excuse delay, without the use of those two very appropriate words. I also asked whether, in any post-war reconstruction plans, consideration would be given to persons who not only had suffered, but continued to suffer loss from subsidence. I was told that it was not a matter for the Ministry to which I addressed the question. Subsequently I made a similar inquiry to the Lord President of the Council, which was then transferred to the Prime Minister and eventually came back to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. That is quite a complicated journey for a simple, straightforward, clear question. This evening, I hope to have a less complicated answer.
I know many cases—scores of cases—in my own division of persons who have purchased their own houses, some of which have been rendered uninhabitable because of the coal having been worked underneath them. I would like to give one or two instances affecting the owners of private houses in the area for which the Blaina and Nantyglo Councils are responsible. There are two four-roomed houses which have been rendered uninhabitable and have had to be vacated. Six others at the present moment are affected, of which one seems likely to be vacated. The total number of persons displaced is 14, excluding absent serving men. In one of the houses which is owned by a miner, who is in receipt of a pension, there are no fewer than four persons, four sons, serving in the Fighting Forces, and that is in an area where there are insufficient houses now to meet local requirements. In my submission, reconstruction becomes a farce if provision cannot be made for the repair of houses.
There is another phase of this problem in the case of persons who have houses and are the occupants. The repairs that are necessary cannot be effected because of the inability of the owners. It is inexplicable that the Government did not impose the obligation to effect these repairs upon the persons who received payment for the working of the coal in the form of royalties, instead of which we allowed these individuals, during the period of 20 years, to take from the industry no less than £120,000,000, and we were only able to get rid of them by presenting them with another £70,000,000. As the State now owns the rights to this coal, the Government have a special responsibility to the owners of damaged property. The war has created a peculiar contradiction, which I hope the Government and the Minister will note, and that contradiction finds expression in an Act of Parliament known as the War Damage Act. The owners of these damaged houses in my Division, and in many other Divisions in Great Britain represented by my colleagues, have to assist in the provision of money in respect of houses damaged or demolished by bombs, yet no provision, unless made in the leases, is provided for people whose houses are similarly destroyed or damaged by subsidence. There are additional financial burdens imposed upon these small individuals, who occupy damaged houses, because of subsidence,


and this applies to repairs generally. It is the cost of repairing public property such as sewers, gas and water mains.
I may be excused for dealing specifically with the position in my own Division and would like to give the House one or two examples of what I mean from the Abertillery Urban District Council area. In eight years, from 1935 to 1943, the difference in the quantity of gas sent out and the amount accounted for amounted to the enormous figure of 160,000,000 cubic feet of gas lost, and that means a loss, expressed in money, of over £9,725; in the same period, the cost of repairs to mains and services was over £9,000. The cost of repairs in one case involved an expenditure, which fell on those people whose private properties had already been damaged, of no less than £350. In the case of new mains, varying from 2 inches to 7 inches, we have had to lay over 8,149 feet, and the total cost of repairs to mains, services, works and plant during those same eight years was over £25,000. This is an enormous burden to an area that has suffered for so many years from industrial depression followed by a long period of unemployment. The house repairs necessitated by subsidence have cost the owners many thousands of pounds, and many more thousands of pounds are required to meet the cost of repairs due to the damage caused by the working of coal underneath the property. In some instances that are known to me personally, it will involve an expenditure of over £100 to repair a single house. To mention that sum is sufficient evidence that it cannot be found by people who live in an area that has suffered for so many years from industrial depression.
In my part of the country we have a water board and a sewerage board whose administrative powers naturally extend beyond the limits of the Division I have the honour to represent, and I am informed that in one area the cost of replacing a length of sewer damaged by subsidence was £1,650. During a particular period the Board, for similar repairs, paid over £35,420. This is in addition to an expenditure from 1910 to 1923 of over £12,000. In the Abertillery district alone, the water board in a period of eight years has effected repairs to mains, etc., costing over £10,000. Here I want to say that I can speak only on behalf of my own people, but a recital of these facts may be unnecessary to those

who have studied the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence and are similar to those known to my colleagues on this side of the House. They are also known to my hon. Friend who is going to reply, and they are or can be the property of the appropriate Departments of the Government.
I would like to refer to an observation made by one of my hon. Friends who wanted to help me when I put down the Question to the Minister, instead of which I am afraid that he rather hindered me. In his supplementary question he asked the Minister whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department would take into account the very important fact that new industries would not come to those areas because of the fear of subsidence of new factories. That is doing the people who live in those areas a grave injustice, because there is not a single instance where owners of a new industry have refused to construct a factory or establish a new industry in my Division as the result of subsidence. The hon. Member who made the observation ought to have known that in most, if not all, the Welsh mining valleys, the houses are built on the side of the mountain, on a slope, and even if the houses had not been erected, it would have been impossible to construct a factory in such an area. I am anxious that the impression should not be created that it is impossible to bring new industries into these areas because of subsidence, and it is because of these facts that I think we are entitled to know what the Government propose to do in the matter, and what action can he expected for those who suffer.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): Nobody will complain that my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) has raised this matter or, indeed, at the manner in which he has dealt with it. As he truthfully said, I am no stranger to this matter of mining subsidence. As a matter of fact I think most hon. Members who represent mining constituencies know that it is fairly general. When my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery put down his Question, in March, he was concerned not only with what consultations were taking place but with what kind of action was going to be taken by the Government. May I assure him, first, that so far as the


consultations are concerned, they have taken place with a number of other Ministries. It is only right they should, because when we were debating the Coal Mines Amendment Bill, I think, last July and we had the Amendment put down by the late Mr. David Adams, then Member for Consett and the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), we did say that this matter would have to be discussed thoroughly.
I should perhaps mention one or two of the Ministries that have been consulted, forgetting for the moment at least the question of past damage. There is, for example, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. You cannot very well plan unless you take into account the extent and possibility of mining subsidence. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning have been consulted and the Board of Trade, also, are interested in this matter, as the location of industries comes within their purview. There are districts in this country, my own in particular, where we would have had some industries had it not been for the prevalence of mining subsidence. In consulting the other Ministries we have to keep in mind the fact that if a prospective builder knows the extent or possibility of mining subsidence, he can take precautions against it. Let me give an illustration about a factory which was erected in my area about two years ago. There, the prospective builders were advised that if they built the factory on a kind of concrete raft, or cradle, it would not only have stronger resistance but, in the event of subsidence taking place gradually, the factory would not tilt but would sink in a more or less uniform fashion. I want to assure my hon. Friend, therefore, that we were quite sincere in suggesting that we would consult other Ministries. These consultations are not yet complete.
What is the position to-day, as a result of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, which took over royalties, because it alters somewhat the future position? In the case of coal already in lease, the position is as it was before the passing of the Act. If there was a right to let down the surface without paying compensation for damage, that right continues. If there was such a right, subject to compensation for damage, the liability to pay compensation remains. It is the normal practice for a lessor to pass on such rights and liabili-

ties to his lessee. The Act provided that if the existing lease did not cover the life of the coal, existing rights and liabilities should continue for the extra period. In the case of coal unleased but already in separate ownership from the surface, the Coal Commission have the same rights and liabilities as the previous owner. Now we come to the future.
In the case of coal unleased and still in the same ownership as the surface the Commission acquired only the coal, and as the previous owner of both coal and surface could scarcely have any rights or liabilities against himself it was necessary to make some provision in this respect. The Act provides that the Commission have the right to let down the surface subject to payment of compensation or the execution of satisfactory repairs. There are certain special provisions dealing, for example, with public utility undertakings and the surface owner still has the right to go to the Railway and Canal Commission and ask for the grant of a right to support by saying that it is in the national interest and that his buildings are of greater importance than the coal.
There were laid down in the Schedule to the 1938 Act a lot of provisions with regard to the last of the positions that I have quoted, in which the Coal Commission, in granting a lease, when they have the right to say "Yes" or "No" with regard to withdrawing the right to support can do so, "provided they pay compensation in case of damage, or pay for repairs to the reasonable satisfaction of the person concerned." They can say to a prospective builder, "It is essential that you should build in a certain way and with certain materials as a precaution against mining subsidence," and if the prospective builder were to disregard the conditions laid down, he would forgo his right to compensation. A good deal of the discussion that has taken place over a number of years in the House, is in with regard to the past. There were on the Royal Commission which reported in 1927 three or four of our own colleagues—I think Vernon Hartshorn and a present Member for one of the Scottish Divisions—and they recommended that private owners or occupiers of property, of £40 annual rateable value or less, who had no right of support or compensation, should have the right to claim damages. I believe they made the county court the venue for redress. The Report is certainly


worth re-reading. We all know of men who have bought a house with their savings and lost it through subsidence with no compensation. Further, there are leases where the colliery owner repairs, and others where he does not. There is no uniformity.
Let us look at some of the difficulties with regard to this question of compensating people in respect of property of low rateable value. A Bill introduced in 1939 contained a provision for fulfilling the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to small owner occupiers and also with regard to damage sustained by local authorities. It is also true that the Royal Commission rejected the claim for compensation for damage to property owned by local authorities. The position with regard to the law on that is that there is a code which dates back nearly 100 years, limited in character, which gives to local authorities the right of notice of approach when coal is being worked within a given distance of their property. The local authority has powers to bargain with the colliery company for compensation for leaving the support in. That has usually been based on the actual cost to the local authority, because they have to compensate in a rather generous way and many of them cannot do it. It is also true with regard to other property owned by them that they had neither right of support nor of compensation, but the Bill contains that as well as compensation to the small owner-occupier.
What was the history of that Bill? It passed through the Second Reading, despite the non-committal attitude of the then Secretary for Mines. It went to a Committee and was completely mutilated. It became a skeleton with little meat on it by the time the Committee finished with it, because they took out references to everything except in respect of the

small owner-occupier. The Bill went to the other place as a very bare skeleton, but I do not know whether they killed it. It is not alive now, for it was more or less finished when the war broke out. That Bill was retrospective to damage done as far back as 1934, but the Royal Commission did not recommend that.
Here comes the difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery says in effect, "Now that the State own the coal the liability for damage done in the past, especially to the small people, should fall on the State." It is curious to reread this Report because the Royal Commission considered two or three alternatives as to who should bear the cost. One was a levy on every ton of coal produced, national in character, out of which this damage should be paid for. Another alternative was that there should be a levy in districts for the same purpose. The Commission rejected the suggestions, of a district pool and a national pool, and put forward an argument that if colliery owners had their liabilities restricted by having a common pool that might lead them not to pay the same attention to preventing subsidence as they would do if they had to bear the expense themselves. They then recommended that the cost of compensating the owner-occupier should fall on those who worked the coal. Some of the people who worked these coal seams, who extracted the coal, and who, there is no doubt, caused the damage, have gone out of existence. It is also true that individuals who owned the collieries are now dead—

It being half an hour after the conclusion of Business exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House), Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, as modified far this Session by the Order of the House of 25th November.